Internal consistency of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There has long been interest in the subject of the internal consistency of the Bible. Judaism, Christianity and Islam (however, see Tawrat and Injil) present the Bible (or Tanakh) as divinely inspired. Some denominations believe in biblical inerrancy, while others hold that inspiration does not preclude human error. Because of these divergent views, apparent internal inconsistencies are important to ecumenical and apologetic discussions, with those believing the text to be essentially true and accurate referring to these issues as difficulties.

Various explanations are provided for the differences. The Roman Catholic Christian view (especially since the Second Vatican Council) holds that the Bible is inerrant only in the things that God intended to reveal, the inconsistencies being deemed not to belong to these, or being deemed to be figurative and/or allegory. The Jewish view is that such issues may be reconciled by reference to other biblical verses or oral teachings. Muslims believe the Torah and Gospels (Tawrat and Injil) were genuine divine revelations taken from the same Guarded Tablets as the Qur'an itself, but were later altered by human intervention (Tahrif). Scholars of textual criticism believe that the books of the Bible were accretions written over a long period of time and edited together several times over. And many non-fundamentalists see these inconsistencies as evidence that the Bible is a human-written book of no special divine origin.

The concern with apparent biblical inconsistencies has a long history. Already in the second century, a pagan critic, Celsus, complained that Christians manipulated their sacred texts at will.^[1] The church father Origen spoke of the "great" number of differences among Gospel manuscripts. The critiques of the early Jewish scholar Hiwi al-Balkhi had already raised concern amongst rabbis of the geonic period. The text, A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, written by Richard Simon, a French priest, appeared in 1689. This was followed in 1707 by the ground breaking edition of the Greek New Testament by theologian John Mill in which he identifies some 30,000 places of variation (mainly spelling differences) from the oldest available texts. Another classic text which discusses some internal contradictions is The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, published in 1794.

Contents 1 Torah 2 Deuteronomic history 3 Chronicles and the deuteronomic history 4 Ezra and Nehemiah 5 The Gospels 5.1 Synoptic Gospels 5.2 Synoptics and the Gospel of John 5.3 Order of events 6 The Acts of the Apostles 7 Pauline epistles 8 Old and New Testaments 8.1 General disparity of content 8.2 Gnostic and Marcionite views 8.3 Specific textual inconsistencies 9 References 10 See also 11 External links 11.1 Pro–errancy 11.2 Pro–inerrancy 12 Notes

[edit] Torah

Main article: Documentary hypothesis

In several places in the Torah, there is what seems to be duplication, and in some cases triplication, of several passages, and sometimes whole stories. During the narrative of the exodus of the Israelites, water is produced from a rock on two occasions, the ten commandments are given twice, there are two censuses, and an extensive law-code is given twice, involving two similar lists of forbidden sexual relations, or three times if the Covenant Code is counted.

In Genesis, Abraham goes to the home of a significant foreigner, claims his wife is actually his sister; the foreigner believes him, takes Abraham's wife as his own (Gen 20:2), but never beds her (Gen 20:4), and is then somehow informed that the woman is actually Abraham's wife, leading to the foreigner apologizing and giving Abraham a form of remuneration. In one case the foreigner's name is Abimelech, a name shared by a foreigner to whom Abraham's son Isaac goes, claims his wife is his sister; the foreigner believes him, takes Isaac's wife as a wife, but never beds her (Gen 26:10), and is then somehow informed that the woman is actually Isaac's wife, leading to the foreigner apologising and giving Isaac a form of remuneration.

Of particular concern to Creationists is the account of creation. Man and woman are created, apparently simultaneously and after the animals, at Genesis 1:27, but at Genesis 2:18-21, Adam is created from dust first, then the animals are made, and then Eve is created from Adam's rib. In classical times, the majority position was that Woman was created twice, that Adam had two wives, the first known as Lilith, as attested in the Talmud and Midrash. In more recent times, supporters of biblical consistency, in particular creationists, have been inclined to claim these both refer to the same creation of the same woman, with the second account being a more detailed reinforcement.

Further problems are sometimes cited in regard to the creation account because the text only indicates the existence of Adam and Eve, Cain, and Seth after the third chapter. Nonetheless, both Seth and Cain have children, even though Cain has been banished from the rest of the persons listed. Most theorists surmise that Eve's daughters simply were not mentioned by the author, or were only mentioned out of chronological sequence at Genesis 5:4. Others sometimes consider Lilith a solution.

Modern scholarship instead presents the documentary hypothesis, alleging multiple, originally separate and partly independent sources were later combined, probably by Ezra, and consequently identifies further passages where the different accounts have been interwoven.

A similar problem occurs where Noah is told once to choose one pair of each living creature for the ark, but another time to choose one pair of unclean creatures and seven of each clean creature. Inerrantists have replied: "The phrase 'two by two' in 7:9 simply means the animals entered the ark in pairs. So the beasts with seven representatives came in as three pairs and one oddball each" [1]. Nevertheless, seven is an odd number, and one cannot be a pair of its kind of animal on its own.

To simultaneously resolve all these issues about pairing, as well apparent anachronisms such as referring to specific individuals and specific groups of people that did not exist when the bible was allegedly written, modern scholarship produced the documentary hypothesis. This theory, after several decades of refinement, has become the accepted view by over 90% of biblical scholars^{[citation needed]}, the Holy See, and several others. According to this theory, several different, originally separate accounts have been skillfully woven together, sometimes more obviously as whole blocks, resulting in the visible doublets and triplets, and sometimes interlaced finely, revealing variant accounts which have been combined together into a coherent story.

[edit] Deuteronomic history

Within the Deuteronomic history, the Book of Joshua purports to present a campaign resulting in the complete conquest of Canaan. Judges is presented as the immediately following history of the area. However, in Judges it appears that the Canaanites were not vanquished as they were in Joshua, but continued to exist, being more gradually suppressed, and in some cases, notably Shechem, their land being purchased rather than conquered.

The Book of Judges also presents several peculiarities concerning the Israelite state, noticeably the Song of Deborah, widely held by textual criticism to be one of if not the oldest part of the entire bible. In this, some of the Tribes of Israel are called upon, but the tribes given do not include all of those given elsewhere in the Torah. In addition, Gilead and Machir are given equal status to the other tribes, but Manasseh is not listed at all, leading several scholars to posit that Machir and Gilead were originally tribes in their own right that were later swallowed up to become the half-tribe of Manasseh.

What is now the First book of Samuel, in the main, presents a positive account of King David, but the Second mostly presents a negative view. This abrupt change in attitude is merely glossed over in the text rather than being explained. The Book of Kings, which follows it, is regarded as more consistent, though the breaks between Kings are somewhat abrupt interruptions to the narrative.

In critical scholarship these features are viewed as the result of the Deuteronomist collecting together several different accounts of the same events, and joining them together with brief passages, and framing. The Book of Chronicles covers the same period in time but also lists some of its sources, and it is these sources which are often considered to have been those which were, more directly, copied into the Deuteronomic history. In particular, the peculiar features of the Deuteronomic history are viewed as a result of some of the underlying sources being recensions, redactions, and different political spins of others.

[edit] Chronicles and the deuteronomic history

The Book of Chronicles and the Deuteronomic history both present an account of the same period of Israelite history, but contain what are apparently subtle discrepancies between them. In the Books of Kings, the basin built before the Temple has a volume of 2000 baths (a Hebrew measure, approximately 32 liters or 8 U.S. gallons), while the account in the Books of Chronicles cites a volume of 3000 baths. David's census yields a result of 800,000 people in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, according to the Books of Samuel, but 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah according to the Chronicler.

If one is willing to accept a small degree of inaccuracy in the text, there are a few easy solutions available; it is possible that the differences between the two accounts are related to the unofficial and incomplete nature of the census, or that the book of Samuel presents rounded numbers, particularly for Judah. Another solution, retaining a higher degree of biblical accuracy, is that one census included categories of men that the other had excluded, for example one could interpret "ready for battle" as a reference to being battle seasoned rather than simply to being of fighting age, and thus Samuel could be argued to refer only to those that had previously experienced battles. According to literalist Apologists, it would be reasonable to assume that there were an additional 300,000 men, almost half the size of the army again, in the reserves^[2].

Biblical criticism, in the main, views these, and other, discrepancies to be down to the two separate accounts being based on the same source, but subject to different political spins. There were two significant factions of the priesthood in pre-exilic Israel/Judah, namely those who claimed descent from Aaron and that only they could be priests, and those who opposed them. Chronicles is viewed as the pro-Aaronid response to the anti-Aaronid Deuteronomist, and, since in this view, Chronicles is over 100 years later, and updated its figures to take account of, for example, the population in its day.

[edit] Ezra and Nehemiah

Both Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 list the sub-clans that returned from the Babylonian captivity, and the number of people in each. In the King James Version of the Bible, out of approximately thirty-five sub-clans listed, over half of the numbers differ between these two chapters. The sub-clans range from differing by 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 100, 105, 201 to 300, and the largest difference is the figure for the sons of Azgad, with a difference of 1,100 between the accounts of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. The given totals however, agree:

    Ezra 2:64: "The whole congregation together was 42,360"

    Nehemiah 7:66: "The whole congregation together was 42,360"

The sum of the figures listed in Ezra totals 29,818, which differs from the given total by 12,542. The sum of the Nehemiah's list gives a total of 31,089, differing by 11,271. The authors of these chapters clearly intended to convey exact figures, and so the reader may decide that the purposeful disagreement serves some higher purpose, and then perhaps speculate on what that purpose is - as with any part of any religious scripture. Alternatively, the reader may decide the disagreement is incidental to the purpose of the chapters, as the numerical disagreement itself is rarely considered a pivotal issue of faith. In either case, it remains a difficulty. [2] [3]

[edit] The Gospels

In the Gospels, there are apparent inconsistencies both among the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), which provide similar narratives of the ministry of Jesus, but also contain significant differences; and between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, which provides a strikingly different description of Jesus' career.

[edit] Synoptic Gospels

Main article: Two-source hypothesis

The various censuses and genealogies in the Bible provide a large number of questions for those who seek to interpret the text completely literally. When the same event is described in two places, numbers often differ. As examples, according to Matthew, the father of Joseph is named James (Jacob in Hebrew), while in Luke, he is called Eli (or Heli).

Apologetics attempt to explain this contradiction by stating that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, despite the fact that it says it is giving the genealogy of Joseph. Their opponents argue that these genealogies were in a large part fabricated to attempt to show that Jesus is a direct descendant of David, and hence a legitimate Jewish Messiah, despite that they have to ignore the virgin birth to do so. Apologists also argue that "father" need not be taken literally in the context since the ancient Hebrew use of the word can often mean simply "male ancestor".

Another possible conflict in the synoptic gospels is between the parallel verses Mark 9:40, Matthew 12:30, and Luke 9:50, all attributed to Jesus.

    Mark 9.40: "He that is not against us is for us."

    Matthew 12.30:  "He who is not with me is against me."

    Luke 9.50: "He that is not against you is for you."
    
    (all RSV)

Matthew's version is in diametric opposition to the versions of Mark and Luke, whose versions express inclusivity, while Matthew's version is exclusive, and means exactly the opposite of the other two statements.

Apologists argue that the writing style of the time period often shifted the order of presentation of ideas or events to emphasize one or more of the ideas/events, and thus the Gospels need not be taken to be chronologically biographical. The variations in details are often cited as evidence for the credibility of the Gospels rather than against it. In the same way that different witnesses to a crime will emphasize different details of the event and/or even remember certain details differently (a person's shirt color or facial hair for example), the Gospel writers wrote with different emphases. Also, to have the Gospels be without any sort of contradiction at all would be strong evidence for some sort of collaboration between writers, and this would be reasonable cause for suspicion of the writers' motives.

To explain the various similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels, mainstream biblical criticism tends to follow the two-source hypothesis, alleging that Matthew and Luke used both the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q Document to produce their Gospels, adding only relatively small amounts of their own material.

[edit] Synoptics and the Gospel of John

There are several apparent discrepancies between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John:

• The Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels generally speaks in brief proverbs, or in parables; the Jesus of John speaks in lengthy philosophical discourses.
• In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' cleansing of the Temple occurs during his final week in Jerusalem before the Crucifixion; in John, it occurs at the beginning of his ministry, several years before the crucifixion.
• In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is tried before the whole Sanhedrin; in John, he is subjected only to a private interview with Annas and Caiaphas.
• In the Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper is a Passover Seder, and Jesus is executed on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread (15 Nisan); in John, the Last Supper is not a seder, and Jesus is executed on the day of preparation, when the lambs were slaughtered for the Passover feast (14 Nisan)

[edit] Order of events

Taken strictly literally, it is difficult to reconcile the order of events between the Gospels concerning the Resurrection of Jesus, supposedly events which happened in the first few days after Jesus' death. Some advocates of biblical inerrancy have offered harmonic accounts, producing a version that they say represents the truth of what happened on the third day[4], asserting that these are not contradictions but merely differences in cultural understanding regarding reporting of events [5].

Early Christians never found these apparent contradictions troublesome, and from very early on there were attempts to harmonize the Gospel accounts, most notably Tatian's second century Diatessaron.

More critical scholars, also from a Christian background, suggest that these variations are natural for different witnesses, each having limited information and reporting what they have heard. C.S. Lewis argued that the inconsistencies even improve the credibility of the narratives, as they suggest that the narratives were written independently.

Ultimately, many Christians view these issues as unimportant in the larger Weltanschauung.

What appear to be inconsistencies are the events taken on either the larger or close scale. For example, an event is either said to have happened in 2 of the 4, but in the other 2, different parts of it are described.

[edit] The Acts of the Apostles

The Acts of the Apostles, supposedly written by a single author, Luke, who tells it in first person minor point of view, features a glaring inconsistency:

9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

22:9 "My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me." (both KJV)

Surely if this is the Luke who knew Paul actually writing, he would have been able to confer with Paul which version is correct, and certainly if it is truly the "word of God", the correct answer would be clear.

One solution to this problem is offered by Apologetics [6] as a similar occasion to the one mentioned in John 12:28-29, where it indicates that men heard the voice of God, but did not hear the words specifically. This is considered to apply in the Pauline case, as well. The men may have heard the voice, but not the words. As indicated by the first verse, then, it means (according to this point of view) that the men heard the sound of the angel's voice, and in the second verse it indicates that they did not hear the articulation of the voice, but rendering the situation as consistent and not contradictory. The New International Version of the Bible revises the texts according to this theory, an example of the factors that lead many to discredit that translation.^[3]

[edit] Pauline epistles

Main article: Authorship of the Pauline epistles

Several significant technical discrepancies arise in textual criticism of the Pauline epistles. Questions concerning writing style, vocabulary and the historic circumstances of the epistles have, for one reason or another, led to there only being seven which are regarded as genuine by a clear majority of scholars. Various shades of opinion cover the authenticity of the remainder, with the Pastoral epistles being seen as being pseudonymous by a large majority. The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews has historically been questioned extensively, and since it is anonymous, even amongst most conservative religious groups, it is believed to have been written by someone other than Paul.

Some of the less technical and more obvious examples of these discrepancies involve significant questions of theology and content:

• What does the writer believe about the Law? (Seemingly abolished in Ephesians, but apparently not in Romans)
• What is the main emphasis? (faith, in Romans and Galatians; however, proper behaviour, and works, appear to be more encouraged in the Pastorals) (Apologists often see these as complementary positions, and not contradictory. Apologists often assert that both faith and works are important, and the different letters are merely emphasizing one of them, but not to the exclusion of the other.)
• Who was Jesus? (Some believe that the epistles range from docetic viewpoints, asserting that the flesh is dead, to views suggesting a concrete historic figure)
• Is Jesus returning soon? (1 Thessalonians seems to say yes; 2 Thessalonians seems to say that it may not necessarily be so soon)
• Are the leaders of the church important? (Some think Galatians seems to disparage church leaders; 1 Timothy appears to teach that bishops and deacons are important)

[edit] Old and New Testaments

[edit] General disparity of content

According to many commentators, several of them Christian, God in the Old Testament is often vengeful, taking abrupt and often merciless action upon his enemies. In contrast, the New Testament appears to present a much lighter deity, declaring that God is love. In the early days of Christianity, this apparent contradiction led to, or was a result of, the Gnostics. On the other hand, most would consider the New Testament to teach a doctrine of eternal hell, which is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. However, the passage found at Isaiah 66:24 in the Old Testament refers to eternal torment of the wicked, which many apologists have taken as refering to torment in hell.

Some Christians proclaim that, due to the stain of an original sin, mankind was prey to passion and instinct, angering God, until mankind learned control—at which point God's mercy shone through resulting in Jesus, thus explaining the behaviour discrepancy. The vast majority of Christians, nevertheless, do not see a complete rupture between the two parts of the Christian Bible, though many advocate some form of supersessionism.

Nonetheless, some aspects of God's attitude are the reverse of this apparent general trend. It is in the New Testament that Jesus talks about hell and how God gets angry regarding men's moral failings, whereas it is in the Old Testament that God is described as kind and merciful, slow to anger. This Old Testament claim about God's attitude is one that appears to conflict with the demonstrated behaviour, an apparent inconsistency that Jews have claimed to address by stating that God is angered by sin and evil, even though he loves humanity and desires the good for them.

[edit] Gnostic and Marcionite views

Main articles: Gnosticism and Marcionites

The most prominent Christian commentator to highlight the apparent discrepancy between the Testaments was Marcion. He claimed that the God of the Old Testament is not the same God as that of the New, and in fact, that the God of the Hebrew Bible was the personification of evil, the demiurge. This essentially was the orthodox position turned on its head, making the serpent in the garden of Eden the hero rather than the villain, trying to save the couple from the evil deity denying them wisdom.

Marcion gave significant financial support to the early church and so his views on this, and on other matters such as that Jesus was not exactly human (Docetism), could not be ignored, and quickly they grew into an exceptionally large following known as the Marcionites. Justin Martyr declared that his views were spread throughout every race of men. Eventually, Marcion was excommunicated, but he afterwards continued to develop his sect independently of the remainder of Christianity, and was for a time evidently highly successful.

Marcion's influence on Christianity cannot be underestimated. The threat Marcion represented to the other views in the 2nd-century church was perceived as so significant that those opposed to him collected together, even though they agreed on little else, and individuals wrote vast series of books on him, effectively creating an orthodoxy. The result of anti-Marcion action was that the church formally defined its teaching, produced a creed to explicitly exclude Marcionism (known as the Roman Symbol — later evolving into the Apostles' Creed), and began the process which later resulted in the biblical canon (something he had done first, intentionally disregarding Jewish scriptures, including the Hebrew Bible, as well as Christian writings which he believed to be too Jewish - writings which included works now part of the New Testament, and also texts now seen as apocryphal by Christians). In the 20th century AD, Marcionism was still regarded as the most heretical of all heresies by the Roman Catholic church, and the most dangerous foe they had ever faced.

Gnosticism continued to appear throughout the centuries until it was brutally suppressed in the Albigensian crusade, widely viewed as one of the most horrific acts of barbarity ever committed by the church, even by mediaeval standards. Although gnostic theology was not supported by the orthodoxy, the discrepancy between the apparent behaviour of God between the Old and New testaments, nevertheless, remained an issue that was seen to exist amongst Christians, even into modern times.

[edit] Specific textual inconsistencies

Many critics of Christianity point to the Bible's contradictory passages when debating the merits of its divine inspiration. The followings are passages that apparently conflict:

• God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all... God is love...[Love] thinketh no evil ^[4]

  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. ...Do they not err that devise evil?...I know that thou [God] canst do all things. ^[4]

One proposed solution to this is that the "evil" spoken of is "calamity" and not the "evil" that first comes to mind. This is supported by the context of in Isaiah 45:7 (where the verse was taken), where God contrasts opposites against eachother. The opposite of "peace" is not "evil", necessarily, but more like calamity. Thus, many translations render the word this way (KJV, NIV). It should be noted, however, that this is the same Hebrew word that describes evil in the Garden of Eden (the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), and the "evil" of humanity that prompted the Flood, and the "wickedness" of the men of Sodom, and the "evil beast" that allegedly devoured Joseph (according to the story concocted by his brothers), and the "evil" his brothers did to Joseph... and so on. It is the evil that many Biblical characters need to be delivered from, or to seek repentance for: and the evil that God will punish people for. It should also be noted that Strong's Hebrew Dictionary indicates multiple possible meanings for this word, including, but not limited to, evil and calamity [7]. It is quite plausible, and even probable (based on the context) that this usage was referring to calamity, and not evil. It is also noteworthy that this is the same word used in 1 Chronicles 7:23 referring to a calamity.

• Love is not jealous or boastful ^[5]

  I the Lord your God am a jealous God ... for the Lord, Whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God ^[5]

Many do not consider this a contradiction. The Greek word (zelos) used in 1 Cor. 13:4 for "jealous" is a word meaning, according to Strong's Greek Dictionary [8], jealousy AND envy. The Hebrew word used in Exodus 20:5 is "qana'", and means jealousy OR envy [9]. Thus, Corinthians condemns jealousy AND envy when combined, but not jealousy specifically. God is jealous, but the verse does not indicate that he is envious, so there seems to be no contradiction.

• [Love] is not arrogant or rude ... it is not irritable or resentful^[6]

  He is a jealous God, He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. If you forsake the Lord, then He will turn and do you hurt, and consume you... To him belong both mercy and anger, and sinners feel the weight of his retribution ... All life belongs to me; the father's life and the son's life, both alike belong to me. The man who has sinned, he is the one who shall die. ^[6]

Some apologists consider this non-contradictory, because they see God as both a compassionate father and a fair judge, who was in the preceding Old Testament passages delivering righteous judgment to those men who are spoken of. The latter qualities are simply predominant in the cited verses.

• There is no such thing as Jew and Greek... male and female, for you are all one person in Christ Jesus. ^[7]

  Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. It was not Adam who deceived; it was the woman, who, yielding to deception, fell into sin...Man is the image of God, and the mirror of his glory, whereas a woman reflects the glory of man. For man did not originally spring from woman, but woman was made out of man; and man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for the sake of man... Women should keep silent at the meeting. They have no permission to talk, but should keep their place as the law directs. If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands at home... Abimelech came up to a tower and attacked it, and as he approached the entrance to set fire to it, a woman threw a millstone down on his head and fractured his skull... he called hurriedly to his armour-bearer and said "Draw your sword and dispatch me, or it will be said of me: A woman killed him." So the young man ran him through, and he died. ^[7]

Many see this as non-contradictory, in that the writer may have considered men and women to be equal, but with different roles. It is proposed that being unable to perform as a minister does not undermine their roles anymore than women's exclusive ability to produce milk places them in a superior position to men.

• If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left. If a man wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. ^[8]

  Whoever strikes another man and kills him must be put to death... When anyone reviles his father and his mother, he must be put to death. Since he has reviled his father and his mother, let his blood be on his own head...But when injury ensues, you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn... If anyone injures and disfigures a fellow-country man, it must be done to him as he has done... You must show no mercy... Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones^[8]

"Inconsistencies" between Old Testament Law and New Testament Law are usually regarded by Apologists as non-contradictory, because Jesus is said to have fulfilled the Old Law and instituted new laws (see Matthew 5:17). Thus, many of the Old Testament Laws are no longer considered to be in effect over Christians.

• And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with the own self glory I had with Thee before the world was ^[9]

  I am Yahweh, that is my name- and my glory to another will I not give ^[9]

Some propose a solution that the Christ was God/Yahweh, so therefore he would be giving glory to himself anyway, and not "to another".

• The man and his wife [Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the Lord God walking about in the garden... The Lord God called to the man, "Where are you?" ^[10].

  But Jesus knew what they were thinking... he knew what was in their minds...For Yahweh is an all-knowing God...and Jesus knew what was going on in their minds. ^[10].

One of the more commonly proposed solutions is that God, in the first verse, was asking rhetorically, and already knew in actuality where they were.

• Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors...There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds. ^[11]

  Go now, fall upon the Amalekites, destroy them, and put their property under ban. Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and donkeys... I [God] polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice all their firstborn; which was to punish them, so that they would learn that I am Yahweh. ^[11]

Apologists often propose that, while God's goodness knows no bounds, neither does his judgment, and therefore also his punishment. The Amalekites are seen by some apologists as deserving of the judgment delivered to them, and therefore the command to destroy them was justified.

• He [God] is more delighted over that [lost] sheep than over the night-nine that did not stray. In the same way, it is not your heavenly Father’s will that one of these little ones should be lost. ^[12]

  If you still defy me and refuse to listen.. I shall send wild beasts in among you; they will tear your children from you.. I shall bring the sword against you to avenge the covenant...and you will be given into the clutches of the enemy. ^[12]

Apologists often interpret the first verse as indicating God's desire that they are not spiritually lost, but bears no relevance to their physical death, thus rendering the situation non-contradictory.

• Be on your guard against those dogs, those who insist on mutilation-'circumcision'...No man whose testicles have been crushed or whose organ has been cut off may become a member of the assembly of the Lord... ^[13]

  Circumcise yourselves, every male among you. You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it will be the sign of the covenant between us... On the journey, while they were encamped for the night, the Lord met Moses and would have killed him, but Zipporah picked up a sharp flint, cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' genitals with it, saying, 'You are my blood-bridgegroom,'...'Blood-bridgegroom by circumcision.'... The battle went hard for Saul and when the archers caught up with him they wounded him severely. He said to his armour-bearer, 'Draw your sword and run me through, so that these uncircumcised brutes may not come and taunt me and make sport of me.' But the armour-bearer refused...Thereupon Saul took his own sword and fell on it ^[13]

This is also seen by Apologists as a conflict between the Old Law and the New Law, and, as explained earlier, is not considered contradictory because the new laws were written after the Old Law had been fulfilled.

• If a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity he involves her in adultery; and whoever marries her commits adultery. ^[14]

  Go, and marry a whore, and get children with a whore, for the country has become nothing but a whore by abandoning Yahweh.... You [Israel] have been like a she-camel, twisting and turning as she runs, rushing off into the wilderness, snuffing the wind in her lust; in her heart who can restrain her? None need tire themselves out in pursuit of her; she is easily found at mating time... If a man takes both a woman and her mother, that is lewdness. Both he and they must be burnt, so that there may be no lewdness in your midst... If a woman approaches an animal to mate with it, you must kill both woman and beast. They must be put to death; their blood be on their heads! When brothers live together and one of them dies without leaving a son, his widow is not to marry outside the family. Her husband's brother is to have intercourse with her, he should take her in marriage and do his duty by her as her husband's brother. ^[14]

Many apologists do not see these as conflicting passages because the second has nothing to do with divorce. If a passage was to be found that encouraged divorce, then the subject could be dealt with.

• Do you not see that nothing that goes into a person from outside can defile him, because it does not go into the heart but into the stomach, and so goes out into the drain? By saying this he declared all foods clean. ^[15]

  All creatures that swarm on the ground are prohibited; they must not be eaten... Anything on which the dead body of such a creature falls will be unclean... The bread you are to eat is to be baked like barley cakes with human dung as fuel, and you must bake it where people can see you. ^[15]

This is also seen by Apologists as a conflict between the Old Law and the New Law, and, as explained earlier, is not considered contradictory because the new laws were written after the Old Law had been fulfilled.

• If a man looks at a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes your downfall, tear it out and flint it away; it is better for you to lose one part of your body than the whole of it to be thrown into hell. ^[16]

  When you go to battle against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take some of them captive, then if you see a comely woman among the prisoners and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your house; there she must shave her head, pare her nails, and discard the clothes which she had when captured. For a full month she is to stay in your house mourning for her father and mother. After that you may have intercourse with her, and be man and wife. But if you no longer find her pleasing, let her go free. You must not sell her or treat her harshly, since you have had your will with her. ^[16]

This is also seen by Apologists as a conflict between the Old Law and the New Law, and, as explained earlier, is not considered contradictory because the new laws were written after the Old Law had been fulfilled.

• No one has ever seen God ^[17]

  I [Jacob] have seen God face to face yet my life is spared...Then I [God] shall take away my hand, and you [Moses] will see my back^[17]

One of the more commonly proposed solutions is that Jacob did not see God, but an angel. This is supported by the context of Genesis 32:30-31, where the person is referred to as a "man" in verse 24. "Man" is a name sometimes used in the Bible to refer to an angel, as evidenced by Revelation 21:17 in the King James and Young Literal translations. It is noteworthy, however, that God is often referred to as a "man" as well (eg. Genesis 18:1-2).

[edit] References

• Paine, Thomas, The Age of Reason, (orig. 1794), Prometheus Books, 1984 edition: ISBN 0-87975-273-4

[edit] See also

• Biblical cosmology
• Biblical criticism
• Biblical literalism
• Criticism of Christianity
• Science and the Bible

[edit] External links

[edit] Pro–errancy

• Biblical Inconsistencies
• The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
• The "Holey" Bible
• Inerrancy Exposed
• Dennis McKinsey's Biblical Errancy

[edit] Pro–inerrancy

• Biblical Inconsistencies Answered
• Monergism.com links to articles on Scripture from a conservative Calvinist perspective
• The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures by B. B. Warfield
• The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (wikisource)
• Defining Biblical Inerrancy by Dr. Vic Reasoner, — a conservative Arminian/Wesleyan perspective
• "Evangelicals and Inerrancy" by Kenneth Kantzer
• "Ezra 2 vs. Nehemiah 7" Apologetic discussion of exact numerical interpretations

[edit] Notes