Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2012 10:45:09 GMT -8
Issue No. 5, May 1983
The Bible has many heroes who play a crucial role in the formulation of Biblical concepts and ideology. Jesus, Paul, Abraham, David and Peter are among the more prominent figures. Unfortunately, each of these individuals has serious deficiencies in his character and should not be depicted as models for our children to emulate. Peter is as good an example as any of one lacking in courage and integrity. All of the following acts, statements, and events in the New Testament show poor judgement associated with naming churches, cathedrals, basilicas, and so forth after him, and the absurdity of granting him sainthood:
•He denied Jesus three times and lied under oath in the process (Matt. 26:70, 72.74-75);
•he will be denied by Jesus in Heaven because he denied Jesus before men (Matt. 10:33);
•he falsely and deceptively stated he would never desert Jesus, although all others may (Matt. 26:33);
•he lied when he said he would stand behind Jesus to the end (Luke 22:33);
•he was called Satan by Jesus(Matt. 16:23);
•he admitted he was sinful (Luke 5:8); he drew a sword and violently cut off a man's ear (John 18:10);
•he was rebuked by Jesus for having little faith (Matt. 14:31) and intruding into Jesus' affairs (John 21:21-22);
•he rebuked Jesus and accused him of making a false statement (Matt.16:22);
•he repeatedly failed to stay awake at the Garden of Gethsemane when asked to so by Jesus (Matt. 26:40-45);
•he wanted to know what was in it for him if he followed Christ (Matt. 19:27);
•he acted afraid and cowardly by refusing to eat with converted Christian gentiles because Jewish legalists were approaching and would object (Gal. 2:11-12);
•he, along with other apostles, felt the report of the Resurrection by the women was an idle tale (Luke 24:10-12);
•he entered Samaritan villages (Acts 8:25) in direct defiance of Jesus' commands (Matt. 10:5);
•he alleged Lot was righteous (2 Peter 2:7-8) despite the fact that Lot offered his virgin daughters to a crowd (Gen. 19:8), was wicked like the others, and did not deserve to be saved from Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction;
•after publicly accusing Ananias before the entire community and frightening him to death, he repeated the act with Ananias' wife (Acts 5:1-10) in contradiction of Jesus' admonitions to show concern for the sensibilities of others (Matt. 5:7. 39);
•he deceptively asked Jesus who was going to betray him (John 21:20), yet was present when Jesus exposed his future betrayer at the Last Supper (Matt. 26:25) and was present when Judas led the soldiers to arrest Jesus (John 18:3-5, 10);
•he asked for signs to be given to his generation (Acts 4:29-30) in opposition to what Jesus said would be done (Mark 8:12);
•he unjustly accused Pontius Pilate of being responsible for Jesus' fate (Acts 4:26-27) when Pilate clearly said he was innocent and did not want to be associated with the taking of "this just person" (Matt. 27:24);
•he said Jesus was killed and then hanged on a tree (Acts 5:30); whereas, he was crucified on a cross before he died (Matt. 27:40, 46);
•and he said God made Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) which would mean he was neither at one time.
Despite this deplorable record, Peter is considered to be a "saint" by many, and one branch of Christendom has even gone so far as to use Matt. 16:18-19 to designate him as first Pope. Of all the Apostles, Peter was the most important; yet he often demonstrated a sorrowful lack of honor, truthfulness and integrity. One can only pity any institution having him as a founding father.
Contradictions
If there is any area in which the Bible's imperfections and errancy is most apparent, it is that of inconsistencies and contradictions. The book is a veritable miasma of contradictory assertions and obvious disagreements, which is to be expected in any writing formulated over approximately 1,500 years by 40 or 50 different writers, few of whom seemed to be precisely concerned with what the others had penned. Moreover, the highly repetitive nature of the Bible accounts for many of the conflicts. It would have been far better for those attempting to defend the Book if, for example Deuteronomy had not repeated so much of Exodus, Chronicles had not repeated so much of Samuel and Kings, and the gospels had not been so repetitious. But they do repeat and, thus, problems exist. Yet, despite all historical, mathematical, ethical, philosophical, geographical, and chronological difficulties contained therein, some die-hard fundamentalists carry their hopelessly doomed resistance to the bitter end. 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:
•(a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
•(b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;
•(c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8), 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8), 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);
•(d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
•(e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;
•(f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;
•(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);
•(h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);
•(i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);
•(j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;
•(k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;
•(l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;
•(m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);
•(n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);
•(o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;
•(p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:8), tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.
Besides hundreds of singular contradictions, the Bible has several instances in which contradictory statements appear in blocks or groups of anywhere from 10 to 25. The numerous problems associated with the Resurrection show this quite well (See: BE #2). Probably the most blatant example concerns the listings in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 of the family units of the returning exiles. There are about 33 units that appear in both lists, starting with the children of Parosh. Fourteen of these units disagree, as can be seen by simply reading down the lists and comparing the numbers. Moreover, Biblical writers often had difficulty in adding figures, and this instance is no exception. Ezra 2:64 says the whole congregation together was 42, 360, whereas, one need only add the figures to see that it is actually 29,818. Neh. 7:66 says the total number of returnees was 42,360, whereas, the actual number of people listed in Nehemiah 7 is 31,089.
REVIEWS
For many years apologists have been using a wide assortment of rationalizations and justifications to explain away obvious contradictions or inaccuracies in Scripture. Many have become masters of distortion, prevarication, and obfuscation, often going as far to make that which is patently false on its face seem rational, if not extraordinarily wise. They have developed an ability to make that which is irrational and absurd seem sensible and profound. The noted Biblical scholar J.T. Sunderland said it well:
Men (theologians) allow themselves conveniently to drop into the background some of the more incredible or objectional things which the books contain; they develop a marvelous facility in explaining away contradictions and inaccuracies and things which the increase of knowledge has shown not to be true, and in reading into the books in a thousand places all sorts of new meanings and so-called "deeper interpretations" to make the teachings of the books harmonize with the increase of knowledge. That which really belongs to the mind of the reader is attributed to that of the writer. The natural and simple meaning of the words is set aside. Forced interpretations are put upon passages for the purpose of compelling them to harmonize with that which it is supposed they ought to mean. Statements, doctrines, and allusions are discovered in the books which not only have no existence in their pages, but which are absolutely foreign to the epoch at which they were written."
The Origin and Character of the Bible,by J.T. Sunderland, p. 12.
In light of this fact, let us look at some of the explanations apologists often submit to explain problems such as those already discussed. In his work, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties, professor Gleason Archer of Evangelical Divinity School attempted to wrestle with many of the contradictory aspects of the Bible and produced a work which is something less than definitive. Although a strong evangelical fundamentalist, he admits the previously-mentioned inconsistencies ( a, b, c, d, and e) are in fact, contradictory. He doesn't dispute the point, but attributes this to copyist errors. A Biblical writer supposedly transcribed something incorrectly. This explanation is often employed by apologists when any other approach would obviously be false. Facts are stubborn things, and closemindedness might begin to show through. But how does one know if a copyist has made a mistake, when Archer himself admits the original writings longer exist? "...we must deal with the very real problem of the complete disappearance of the autographa (the original writings) themselves... it is technically true that there are no extant inerrant originals." (p. 27). "it may be true that we no longer possess any perfect copy of the inerrant original manuscripts of the Bible." (p. 28). Having said this, Archer then makes a statement bordering on the absurd. "So also, we must cherish the inerrant originals of Holy Scripture as free from all mistakes of any kind, even though we have never actually seen them." (p. 29). Imagine the nonsense of this! We are told, Yes, there are contradictions in the KJV of the Bible. Why? Because somebody copied something wrong from the original writings. But no one has ever seen the original writings, so how does Archer know that something was copied incorrectly? How does he know the original itself is flawless? The originals themselves could very well contradict each other. In fact, how does Archer know there were original writings to begin with? Apologists constantly talk about the autographa, which admittedly do not exist, and no living person has ever seen. Modern versions of the Bible such as the King James, the New American standard, the Revised Standard, and the New International are nothing more than compilations, put together by a team of scholars who, after viewing a wide variety of Biblical manuscripts and codices (e.g., Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vatianus), attempted to reconstruct the alleged original writings. The fatal flaw in the entire process, even if there had been original writings, lies in the fact that hundreds of manuscripts disagree on hundreds of verses. Consequently, any version of the Bible is nothing more than the outcome of a popularity contest, in which conflicting manuscripts were reconciled with conflicting scholarly opinion. Votes, not God, gave man the Bibles of today.
Turning from the copyist error defense, let's examine some other common responses apologists often give to problems. With regard to the contradictions between Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, Archer says, "But it may well be that Ezra used the earlier list of those who originally announced their intentions to join the caravan of returning colonists, whereas Nehemiah's list reproduces the tally of those who actually arrived in Judea at the end of the long trek..." (Ibid. p. 230). Archer then dismissed the inaccurate totals by saying, "At any rate, the difference in totals that do appear in these two tallies should occasion no surprise whatever. The same sort of argumentation and attrition (while en route) has been featured in every large migration in human history." (Ibid. p. 230).
This explanation has no strength whatever, since Ezra 2:1 and Nehemiah 7:6 clearly show both lists are referring to those who actually returned to Jerusalem and Judah. What happened while they journeyed is irrelevant. Thus, there are contradictions with respect to the number in each tribe and total number of arrivals. Archer closed his commentary by attributing some of the difficulty to copyist errors."...it is very easy to see how uncertainty as to the digit might join with absent-mindedness on the part of the copyist to produce an inaccuracy in reproducing the figures." (p. 230).
In regard to the Ezra/Nehemiah problem, W. Arndt, an apologetic professor of New Testament exegesis and hermeneutics at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, said copyist errors were responsible. "It is quite likely that where so many names and figures had to be copied, errors of transcribers crept in, and that these are responsible for some of the variations." Does The Bible Contradict Itself?, W. Arndt, p.49.
Chronological contradictions exist throughout much of the Bible, and nowhere is this more evident than in the gospels. For instance, Luke 4:5-9 says the devil took Jesus up to an (sic) high mountain and then to the pinnacle of the temple, while Matt. 4:5-8 says he took him to the pinnacle first and then to the mountain. Archer's attempt to resolve this problem relies almost entirely on one word. He claims that Matthew uses "then" (Matt. 4:5), which shows a logical sequence of events, while Luke uses "and" (Luke 4:9) between the two events, which obscures the sequence of events (p. 230). The problem with this approach is that several versions of the Bible (NIV, Modern Language, the Living Bible) say that the Greek word which has been translated as "and" in the KJV (Luke 4:9) should be translated as "then". Moreover, there are 44 verses in Luke's fourth chapter, and 34 of them begin with "and". If Archer's logic is adhered to, 34 of the verses could be rearranged in any manner a translator desired, and no one could possibly know the sequence of events.
Another chronological contradiction Archer attempts to reconcile concerns whether Jesus overthrew the tables of the money-changers (Matt. 21:12) and subsequently cursed the fig tree (Matt. 21:19), or cursed the fig tree (Mark 11:14) and then threw out the money-changers (Mark 11:15). Archer's resolution of this problem borders on the pathetic. He admits Mark 11:14-15 is arranged sequentially, but says of Matthew, "As we study the narrative technique of Matthew in general, we find that he sometimes arranges his material in topical order rather than in the strictly chronological order that is more often characteristic of Mark and Luke" (Ibid p. 334). Yet, one need only read Matthew 21:12-19 to see that the narrative is arranged chronologically, not topically. Matthew 21:18 clearly shows the fig tree was cursed the day after the money-changers were expelled, in clear opposition to Mark's account.
Anyone desiring a more comprehensive listing of head to head Biblical disagreements can consult such works as: The Bible Handbook by G.W. Fooote, Is It God's Word? by Joeseph Wheless, The Bible by John Remsberg, The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, or The Christ by John Resburg. Each book is well worth reading.
Letter #4 from Michael Hauenstein of Dayton, Ohio (PART II)
You say that Jesus repeatedly made false statements . Using a RSV (Revised Standard Version), a corrupt piece of junk if there ever was one, you say, "Jesus broke his promise" in John 7:8-10. First of all, AV 1611 (King James Authorized Version) is the only Bible without a provable error in it. By using a RSV you'll find all kinds of mistakes. But the AV 1611 is correct every time, it won't miss a lick. The AV 1611 says, "I go not up yet." Jesus didn't lie. He just wasn't going to go up when they went. Now, who made a false statement: God and the Bible or you?
Editor's Response to Letter #4 (PART II)
Mike, let's don't be absurd. The fact that the King James Version of the Bible has obvious and provable contradictions is beyond rational dispute. Holding strongly to one's beliefs and defending them with firm conviction is one thing; fanaticism is another. Anyone who can read can see contradictions abound. That's not the issue. The question is: Are they of sufficient numbers and of such overriding importance as to destroy the Bible's validity? Do yourself a favor, Mike. Don't try to protect an utterly indefensible position. You said the King James Version "won't miss a lick." Don't let yourself be licked by relying on it.
You contend the KJV, unlike the RSV, protects Jesus by having "Yet" in the verse (John 7:8). But I suggest you observe other versions of the Bible, such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) because it omits "yet" also. Before calling it a "piece of junk" too, you'd better consult such fundamentalist evangelicals as Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, whose writings are quite prominent in Christian bookstores. In Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity they say, "Although it is not as readable as some translations, its accuracy is second to none. If one desires to study the Scripture, the New American Standard Bible is perhaps the best Bible available." (p. 71). There was no "yet" in the manuscripts scholars studied. and that's why the RSV of 1952 and NASB of 1971 omitted it. Biblicists are well aware of this problem, Mike, and certainly would have put "yet" in, if at all possible. They don't want to confront this difficulty any more than you do. (Letter#4 will be continued)
Letter #10 from M.B. of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
Dear Sir, It is refreshing to hear a sound rebuttal against literalists and "their" Bible. I am an unfortunate person who works with three "fundies" (one of whom is a self-taught Reverend) on an almost daily basis. Furthermore, these "fundies" have friends, so I am constantly bombarded with biblical rhetoric.
The so-called Reverend is smugly reviewing your first two issues. His comments, I'm sure, will only be defensive at best, since your logic is impeccable. Having enjoyed your first two issues of BE, I would be interested in knowing about yourself and your background. Indeed the fervor of your attack seems to suggest a former fundamentalist past. In any case, I'll be looking forward to your next issues.
Editor's Response to Letter #10
Dear M.B. I always avoid leaving the Bible and discussing myself, but since your letter is so nice I guess a slight divergence won't matter. I have a bachelors's degree in philosophy and a master's in the social sciences. I've been in the field of education for over 15 years, and passed the age of 40 some time ago. Serious reading, chess, and tennis are my favorite pastimes, and probably show I have no fundamentalist background whatever. I grew up as a religious neutral and have been teaching myself since age 16, thus avoiding the usual one-sided instruction. Incidentally, ask your "so-called" reverend friend to write me. I'd like to hear from him.
Letter #11 from Don Morgan of Crusade Publications of P.O. Box 200, Redmond, Washington 96052-0200
Dear Mr. McKinsey. Your March issue was, as usual, very well done. With regard to letter #3, and your response to it, I would like to offer a few comments. When 2 Tim. 3:16 was penned (and it was probably NOT written by the so-called Paul) THE BIBLE DID NOT EXIST--the verse could not, therefore, refer to the Bible as we know it. At the most, it could only have pertained to the Old Testament. All of "Paul's"letters were completed BEFORE the first word of any of the so-called gospels was penned, and long before the question of biblical canon was settled (as you probably know). In addition, the verse can be correctly translated as follows: "All scripture WHICH IS INSPIRED by God..." (which puts the verse into an entirely different perspective). 2 Tim. 3:16 can only be used by, or on, the gullible to "prove" the inspiration of the Bible. When so used, not only is the verse being used incorrectly in terms of Biblical chronology and in terms of probable intended meaning, it is also used being used in a circular reasoning process (as I am sure you are aware). One must also take note of the fact (as one fundamentalist minister admitted to me) that "all scripture" can, in this case, mean nothing more than "all writing." Thus, 2 Tim. 3:16 becomes completely worthless in supporting the notion of biblical inspiration!
In response to questions such as: "Why do you go to such great lengths to prove the Bible wrong?" I respond that I consider it my DUTY to expose the true nature of the Bible in order to offset those who go to such great lengths to prove that the Bible is the word of God. I point out that a perfect being WOULD BE APPALLED to be associated in any way with such an imperfect book.
In addition (and you can tell "Ray" about this), I was once a born again, Bible believing, God fearing, fundamentalist Christian (See: Letter #3 in Issue #3-ed.). "God" gave me a reasonably good set of brains. I could not help but notice, in my on-going Bible studies, that there were problems with the Bible that were more than apparent. I gingerly began investigate. One thing led to another. What started as a timid investigation became a full-blown hobby, which has constantly occupied my time for almost six years, and I am now a born-again agnostic/atheist. I contend that ANYBODY who looked into the Bible as I have done would either: 1) become an agnostic or atheist, or 2) keep his "faith" only by subverting his own reasoning and denying reality.
Editor's response to Letter #11
Well, said, Don! Many scholars have stated the points you have made about 2 Tim. 3:16. Whether it should be translated, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (KJV) or "Every scripture which is inspired by God is also..." (Many Greek scholars) makes a tremendous difference. The latter translation implies some scripture is not inspired and would destroy the strongest verse fundamentalists use to prove the Bible's inerrancy. Incidentally, it really isn't necessary to go to "great lengths" to disprove the Bible. One need only open the Book and read with a critical eye.
Letter #12 from S.B. of Portland, Oregon
Dear Dennis: To put my reaction to Biblical Errancy in today's vernacular, "totally awesome!" Herein (I'm a ... student and we all talk with words like that), please find my check for $3 for the next six issues of BE, as per your offer on page six of issue #3. Are Issues #1 and #2 possible to obtain? If they're as good as #3, I ought to start keeping a set of these things...
Editor's Response to Letter #12
Dear S.B. Any back issue of BE is available. Just send 75¢ for each issue you desire.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
(a) Any letter sent to the editor may be published unless the author stated he/she does not want it put into Biblical Errancy. (b) The name of any individual submitting a letter to BE will no longer be revealed when the letter is published. Only initials will be used unless the source says he/she wants to be identified. Letters to BE are always welcome and will be encouraged (c) Anyone not wanting his initials and/or address revealed should so state.
Peter
The Bible has many heroes who play a crucial role in the formulation of Biblical concepts and ideology. Jesus, Paul, Abraham, David and Peter are among the more prominent figures. Unfortunately, each of these individuals has serious deficiencies in his character and should not be depicted as models for our children to emulate. Peter is as good an example as any of one lacking in courage and integrity. All of the following acts, statements, and events in the New Testament show poor judgement associated with naming churches, cathedrals, basilicas, and so forth after him, and the absurdity of granting him sainthood:
•He denied Jesus three times and lied under oath in the process (Matt. 26:70, 72.74-75);
•he will be denied by Jesus in Heaven because he denied Jesus before men (Matt. 10:33);
•he falsely and deceptively stated he would never desert Jesus, although all others may (Matt. 26:33);
•he lied when he said he would stand behind Jesus to the end (Luke 22:33);
•he was called Satan by Jesus(Matt. 16:23);
•he admitted he was sinful (Luke 5:8); he drew a sword and violently cut off a man's ear (John 18:10);
•he was rebuked by Jesus for having little faith (Matt. 14:31) and intruding into Jesus' affairs (John 21:21-22);
•he rebuked Jesus and accused him of making a false statement (Matt.16:22);
•he repeatedly failed to stay awake at the Garden of Gethsemane when asked to so by Jesus (Matt. 26:40-45);
•he wanted to know what was in it for him if he followed Christ (Matt. 19:27);
•he acted afraid and cowardly by refusing to eat with converted Christian gentiles because Jewish legalists were approaching and would object (Gal. 2:11-12);
•he, along with other apostles, felt the report of the Resurrection by the women was an idle tale (Luke 24:10-12);
•he entered Samaritan villages (Acts 8:25) in direct defiance of Jesus' commands (Matt. 10:5);
•he alleged Lot was righteous (2 Peter 2:7-8) despite the fact that Lot offered his virgin daughters to a crowd (Gen. 19:8), was wicked like the others, and did not deserve to be saved from Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction;
•after publicly accusing Ananias before the entire community and frightening him to death, he repeated the act with Ananias' wife (Acts 5:1-10) in contradiction of Jesus' admonitions to show concern for the sensibilities of others (Matt. 5:7. 39);
•he deceptively asked Jesus who was going to betray him (John 21:20), yet was present when Jesus exposed his future betrayer at the Last Supper (Matt. 26:25) and was present when Judas led the soldiers to arrest Jesus (John 18:3-5, 10);
•he asked for signs to be given to his generation (Acts 4:29-30) in opposition to what Jesus said would be done (Mark 8:12);
•he unjustly accused Pontius Pilate of being responsible for Jesus' fate (Acts 4:26-27) when Pilate clearly said he was innocent and did not want to be associated with the taking of "this just person" (Matt. 27:24);
•he said Jesus was killed and then hanged on a tree (Acts 5:30); whereas, he was crucified on a cross before he died (Matt. 27:40, 46);
•and he said God made Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) which would mean he was neither at one time.
Despite this deplorable record, Peter is considered to be a "saint" by many, and one branch of Christendom has even gone so far as to use Matt. 16:18-19 to designate him as first Pope. Of all the Apostles, Peter was the most important; yet he often demonstrated a sorrowful lack of honor, truthfulness and integrity. One can only pity any institution having him as a founding father.
Contradictions
If there is any area in which the Bible's imperfections and errancy is most apparent, it is that of inconsistencies and contradictions. The book is a veritable miasma of contradictory assertions and obvious disagreements, which is to be expected in any writing formulated over approximately 1,500 years by 40 or 50 different writers, few of whom seemed to be precisely concerned with what the others had penned. Moreover, the highly repetitive nature of the Bible accounts for many of the conflicts. It would have been far better for those attempting to defend the Book if, for example Deuteronomy had not repeated so much of Exodus, Chronicles had not repeated so much of Samuel and Kings, and the gospels had not been so repetitious. But they do repeat and, thus, problems exist. Yet, despite all historical, mathematical, ethical, philosophical, geographical, and chronological difficulties contained therein, some die-hard fundamentalists carry their hopelessly doomed resistance to the bitter end. 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:
•(a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
•(b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;
•(c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8), 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8), 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);
•(d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
•(e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;
•(f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;
•(g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);
•(h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);
•(i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);
•(j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;
•(k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;
•(l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;
•(m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);
•(n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);
•(o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;
•(p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:8), tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.
Besides hundreds of singular contradictions, the Bible has several instances in which contradictory statements appear in blocks or groups of anywhere from 10 to 25. The numerous problems associated with the Resurrection show this quite well (See: BE #2). Probably the most blatant example concerns the listings in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 of the family units of the returning exiles. There are about 33 units that appear in both lists, starting with the children of Parosh. Fourteen of these units disagree, as can be seen by simply reading down the lists and comparing the numbers. Moreover, Biblical writers often had difficulty in adding figures, and this instance is no exception. Ezra 2:64 says the whole congregation together was 42, 360, whereas, one need only add the figures to see that it is actually 29,818. Neh. 7:66 says the total number of returnees was 42,360, whereas, the actual number of people listed in Nehemiah 7 is 31,089.
REVIEWS
For many years apologists have been using a wide assortment of rationalizations and justifications to explain away obvious contradictions or inaccuracies in Scripture. Many have become masters of distortion, prevarication, and obfuscation, often going as far to make that which is patently false on its face seem rational, if not extraordinarily wise. They have developed an ability to make that which is irrational and absurd seem sensible and profound. The noted Biblical scholar J.T. Sunderland said it well:
Men (theologians) allow themselves conveniently to drop into the background some of the more incredible or objectional things which the books contain; they develop a marvelous facility in explaining away contradictions and inaccuracies and things which the increase of knowledge has shown not to be true, and in reading into the books in a thousand places all sorts of new meanings and so-called "deeper interpretations" to make the teachings of the books harmonize with the increase of knowledge. That which really belongs to the mind of the reader is attributed to that of the writer. The natural and simple meaning of the words is set aside. Forced interpretations are put upon passages for the purpose of compelling them to harmonize with that which it is supposed they ought to mean. Statements, doctrines, and allusions are discovered in the books which not only have no existence in their pages, but which are absolutely foreign to the epoch at which they were written."
The Origin and Character of the Bible,by J.T. Sunderland, p. 12.
In light of this fact, let us look at some of the explanations apologists often submit to explain problems such as those already discussed. In his work, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties, professor Gleason Archer of Evangelical Divinity School attempted to wrestle with many of the contradictory aspects of the Bible and produced a work which is something less than definitive. Although a strong evangelical fundamentalist, he admits the previously-mentioned inconsistencies ( a, b, c, d, and e) are in fact, contradictory. He doesn't dispute the point, but attributes this to copyist errors. A Biblical writer supposedly transcribed something incorrectly. This explanation is often employed by apologists when any other approach would obviously be false. Facts are stubborn things, and closemindedness might begin to show through. But how does one know if a copyist has made a mistake, when Archer himself admits the original writings longer exist? "...we must deal with the very real problem of the complete disappearance of the autographa (the original writings) themselves... it is technically true that there are no extant inerrant originals." (p. 27). "it may be true that we no longer possess any perfect copy of the inerrant original manuscripts of the Bible." (p. 28). Having said this, Archer then makes a statement bordering on the absurd. "So also, we must cherish the inerrant originals of Holy Scripture as free from all mistakes of any kind, even though we have never actually seen them." (p. 29). Imagine the nonsense of this! We are told, Yes, there are contradictions in the KJV of the Bible. Why? Because somebody copied something wrong from the original writings. But no one has ever seen the original writings, so how does Archer know that something was copied incorrectly? How does he know the original itself is flawless? The originals themselves could very well contradict each other. In fact, how does Archer know there were original writings to begin with? Apologists constantly talk about the autographa, which admittedly do not exist, and no living person has ever seen. Modern versions of the Bible such as the King James, the New American standard, the Revised Standard, and the New International are nothing more than compilations, put together by a team of scholars who, after viewing a wide variety of Biblical manuscripts and codices (e.g., Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vatianus), attempted to reconstruct the alleged original writings. The fatal flaw in the entire process, even if there had been original writings, lies in the fact that hundreds of manuscripts disagree on hundreds of verses. Consequently, any version of the Bible is nothing more than the outcome of a popularity contest, in which conflicting manuscripts were reconciled with conflicting scholarly opinion. Votes, not God, gave man the Bibles of today.
Turning from the copyist error defense, let's examine some other common responses apologists often give to problems. With regard to the contradictions between Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, Archer says, "But it may well be that Ezra used the earlier list of those who originally announced their intentions to join the caravan of returning colonists, whereas Nehemiah's list reproduces the tally of those who actually arrived in Judea at the end of the long trek..." (Ibid. p. 230). Archer then dismissed the inaccurate totals by saying, "At any rate, the difference in totals that do appear in these two tallies should occasion no surprise whatever. The same sort of argumentation and attrition (while en route) has been featured in every large migration in human history." (Ibid. p. 230).
This explanation has no strength whatever, since Ezra 2:1 and Nehemiah 7:6 clearly show both lists are referring to those who actually returned to Jerusalem and Judah. What happened while they journeyed is irrelevant. Thus, there are contradictions with respect to the number in each tribe and total number of arrivals. Archer closed his commentary by attributing some of the difficulty to copyist errors."...it is very easy to see how uncertainty as to the digit might join with absent-mindedness on the part of the copyist to produce an inaccuracy in reproducing the figures." (p. 230).
In regard to the Ezra/Nehemiah problem, W. Arndt, an apologetic professor of New Testament exegesis and hermeneutics at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, said copyist errors were responsible. "It is quite likely that where so many names and figures had to be copied, errors of transcribers crept in, and that these are responsible for some of the variations." Does The Bible Contradict Itself?, W. Arndt, p.49.
Chronological contradictions exist throughout much of the Bible, and nowhere is this more evident than in the gospels. For instance, Luke 4:5-9 says the devil took Jesus up to an (sic) high mountain and then to the pinnacle of the temple, while Matt. 4:5-8 says he took him to the pinnacle first and then to the mountain. Archer's attempt to resolve this problem relies almost entirely on one word. He claims that Matthew uses "then" (Matt. 4:5), which shows a logical sequence of events, while Luke uses "and" (Luke 4:9) between the two events, which obscures the sequence of events (p. 230). The problem with this approach is that several versions of the Bible (NIV, Modern Language, the Living Bible) say that the Greek word which has been translated as "and" in the KJV (Luke 4:9) should be translated as "then". Moreover, there are 44 verses in Luke's fourth chapter, and 34 of them begin with "and". If Archer's logic is adhered to, 34 of the verses could be rearranged in any manner a translator desired, and no one could possibly know the sequence of events.
Another chronological contradiction Archer attempts to reconcile concerns whether Jesus overthrew the tables of the money-changers (Matt. 21:12) and subsequently cursed the fig tree (Matt. 21:19), or cursed the fig tree (Mark 11:14) and then threw out the money-changers (Mark 11:15). Archer's resolution of this problem borders on the pathetic. He admits Mark 11:14-15 is arranged sequentially, but says of Matthew, "As we study the narrative technique of Matthew in general, we find that he sometimes arranges his material in topical order rather than in the strictly chronological order that is more often characteristic of Mark and Luke" (Ibid p. 334). Yet, one need only read Matthew 21:12-19 to see that the narrative is arranged chronologically, not topically. Matthew 21:18 clearly shows the fig tree was cursed the day after the money-changers were expelled, in clear opposition to Mark's account.
Anyone desiring a more comprehensive listing of head to head Biblical disagreements can consult such works as: The Bible Handbook by G.W. Fooote, Is It God's Word? by Joeseph Wheless, The Bible by John Remsberg, The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, or The Christ by John Resburg. Each book is well worth reading.
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #4 from Michael Hauenstein of Dayton, Ohio (PART II)
You say that Jesus repeatedly made false statements . Using a RSV (Revised Standard Version), a corrupt piece of junk if there ever was one, you say, "Jesus broke his promise" in John 7:8-10. First of all, AV 1611 (King James Authorized Version) is the only Bible without a provable error in it. By using a RSV you'll find all kinds of mistakes. But the AV 1611 is correct every time, it won't miss a lick. The AV 1611 says, "I go not up yet." Jesus didn't lie. He just wasn't going to go up when they went. Now, who made a false statement: God and the Bible or you?
Editor's Response to Letter #4 (PART II)
Mike, let's don't be absurd. The fact that the King James Version of the Bible has obvious and provable contradictions is beyond rational dispute. Holding strongly to one's beliefs and defending them with firm conviction is one thing; fanaticism is another. Anyone who can read can see contradictions abound. That's not the issue. The question is: Are they of sufficient numbers and of such overriding importance as to destroy the Bible's validity? Do yourself a favor, Mike. Don't try to protect an utterly indefensible position. You said the King James Version "won't miss a lick." Don't let yourself be licked by relying on it.
You contend the KJV, unlike the RSV, protects Jesus by having "Yet" in the verse (John 7:8). But I suggest you observe other versions of the Bible, such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) because it omits "yet" also. Before calling it a "piece of junk" too, you'd better consult such fundamentalist evangelicals as Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, whose writings are quite prominent in Christian bookstores. In Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity they say, "Although it is not as readable as some translations, its accuracy is second to none. If one desires to study the Scripture, the New American Standard Bible is perhaps the best Bible available." (p. 71). There was no "yet" in the manuscripts scholars studied. and that's why the RSV of 1952 and NASB of 1971 omitted it. Biblicists are well aware of this problem, Mike, and certainly would have put "yet" in, if at all possible. They don't want to confront this difficulty any more than you do. (Letter#4 will be continued)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[/b]Letter #10 from M.B. of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
Dear Sir, It is refreshing to hear a sound rebuttal against literalists and "their" Bible. I am an unfortunate person who works with three "fundies" (one of whom is a self-taught Reverend) on an almost daily basis. Furthermore, these "fundies" have friends, so I am constantly bombarded with biblical rhetoric.
The so-called Reverend is smugly reviewing your first two issues. His comments, I'm sure, will only be defensive at best, since your logic is impeccable. Having enjoyed your first two issues of BE, I would be interested in knowing about yourself and your background. Indeed the fervor of your attack seems to suggest a former fundamentalist past. In any case, I'll be looking forward to your next issues.
Editor's Response to Letter #10
Dear M.B. I always avoid leaving the Bible and discussing myself, but since your letter is so nice I guess a slight divergence won't matter. I have a bachelors's degree in philosophy and a master's in the social sciences. I've been in the field of education for over 15 years, and passed the age of 40 some time ago. Serious reading, chess, and tennis are my favorite pastimes, and probably show I have no fundamentalist background whatever. I grew up as a religious neutral and have been teaching myself since age 16, thus avoiding the usual one-sided instruction. Incidentally, ask your "so-called" reverend friend to write me. I'd like to hear from him.
Letter #11 from Don Morgan of Crusade Publications of P.O. Box 200, Redmond, Washington 96052-0200
Dear Mr. McKinsey. Your March issue was, as usual, very well done. With regard to letter #3, and your response to it, I would like to offer a few comments. When 2 Tim. 3:16 was penned (and it was probably NOT written by the so-called Paul) THE BIBLE DID NOT EXIST--the verse could not, therefore, refer to the Bible as we know it. At the most, it could only have pertained to the Old Testament. All of "Paul's"letters were completed BEFORE the first word of any of the so-called gospels was penned, and long before the question of biblical canon was settled (as you probably know). In addition, the verse can be correctly translated as follows: "All scripture WHICH IS INSPIRED by God..." (which puts the verse into an entirely different perspective). 2 Tim. 3:16 can only be used by, or on, the gullible to "prove" the inspiration of the Bible. When so used, not only is the verse being used incorrectly in terms of Biblical chronology and in terms of probable intended meaning, it is also used being used in a circular reasoning process (as I am sure you are aware). One must also take note of the fact (as one fundamentalist minister admitted to me) that "all scripture" can, in this case, mean nothing more than "all writing." Thus, 2 Tim. 3:16 becomes completely worthless in supporting the notion of biblical inspiration!
In response to questions such as: "Why do you go to such great lengths to prove the Bible wrong?" I respond that I consider it my DUTY to expose the true nature of the Bible in order to offset those who go to such great lengths to prove that the Bible is the word of God. I point out that a perfect being WOULD BE APPALLED to be associated in any way with such an imperfect book.
In addition (and you can tell "Ray" about this), I was once a born again, Bible believing, God fearing, fundamentalist Christian (See: Letter #3 in Issue #3-ed.). "God" gave me a reasonably good set of brains. I could not help but notice, in my on-going Bible studies, that there were problems with the Bible that were more than apparent. I gingerly began investigate. One thing led to another. What started as a timid investigation became a full-blown hobby, which has constantly occupied my time for almost six years, and I am now a born-again agnostic/atheist. I contend that ANYBODY who looked into the Bible as I have done would either: 1) become an agnostic or atheist, or 2) keep his "faith" only by subverting his own reasoning and denying reality.
Editor's response to Letter #11
Well, said, Don! Many scholars have stated the points you have made about 2 Tim. 3:16. Whether it should be translated, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (KJV) or "Every scripture which is inspired by God is also..." (Many Greek scholars) makes a tremendous difference. The latter translation implies some scripture is not inspired and would destroy the strongest verse fundamentalists use to prove the Bible's inerrancy. Incidentally, it really isn't necessary to go to "great lengths" to disprove the Bible. One need only open the Book and read with a critical eye.
Letter #12 from S.B. of Portland, Oregon
Dear Dennis: To put my reaction to Biblical Errancy in today's vernacular, "totally awesome!" Herein (I'm a ... student and we all talk with words like that), please find my check for $3 for the next six issues of BE, as per your offer on page six of issue #3. Are Issues #1 and #2 possible to obtain? If they're as good as #3, I ought to start keeping a set of these things...
Editor's Response to Letter #12
Dear S.B. Any back issue of BE is available. Just send 75¢ for each issue you desire.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
(a) Any letter sent to the editor may be published unless the author stated he/she does not want it put into Biblical Errancy. (b) The name of any individual submitting a letter to BE will no longer be revealed when the letter is published. Only initials will be used unless the source says he/she wants to be identified. Letters to BE are always welcome and will be encouraged (c) Anyone not wanting his initials and/or address revealed should so state.