Biblical contradictions

A perfect book

The backbone of Christianity is the Bible, and many people regard it as divinely authored and without error.  And because of this, they say all we ever need to look at is the Bible.  If these claims are true, then we have nothing to lose by seeing how it compares to what we know of the world outside of the Bible.  As I said in the previous article, that is exactly what I intend to explore, and most of the remaining articles will deal with that from various angles.  But there is also value in examining the claim that the Bible does not contradict itself, and that is what this article will focus on.  I will not attempt to examine every proposed contradiction here, and there are some that will be relevant in later articles and will be discussed there.  Rather, the goal is to look at some representative ones, and also examine how apologists defend this idea.

Principles of harmonization

When two verses apparently contradict each other, finding a way in which the contradiction can be resolved is called harmonization.  An invaluable resource for my research has been Evidence That Demands a Verdict (the expanded version), and it lists some common principles that apologists use when harmonizing verses, which they have summarized from another book, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.  I am going to examine each one of the seventeen (!) points they list.  More specifically, I am going to consider if these principles are reasonable for someone looking at all of this for the first time, thinking it Might Be True, versus someone who has already decided it Must Be True.

1: Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable

This sounds reasonable enough at first look.  They compare this to a scientist that cannot explain some observed phenomenon.  The scientist does not give up, but assumes that, in time, an explanation can be found.  The problem is that this is not a good comparison.  An anomaly is not the same as a contradiction.  An anomaly would be something that doesn’t fit a previous pattern.  For example, a star that radiates far more energy than other stars we’ve observed would be an anomaly.  A contradiction would be a star that appears to be simultaneously getting bigger and smaller over time.  Both simply cannot be true.  A scientist would not hold out hope that someday we will understand how both can be true.  Rather, they would realize something is wrong: their theories, their methods of gathering data, the equipment they are using, etc.  Similarly, the rational view is that maybe the Biblical record is not perfect.  Only someone holding that the idea of Biblical inerrancy Must Be True will find this principle helpful.

2: Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent

I’ve already covered the flaws in this logic in the previous article.

3: Confusing our fallible interpretations with God’s infallible revelation

Consider this quote from their discussion of this principle: “The Bible cannot be mistaken, but we can be mistaken about the Bible”.  Clearly this principle only is valid to the extent that you have already decided inerrancy Must Be True.

4: Failing to understand the context of the passage

This is reasonable enough.  For any writing, context can be important.  Though this doesn’t guarantee that, with sufficient context, any conflicting text can be harmonized.

5: Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones

This is saying that, even though a given verse may be problematic, if another speaks on the same topic and appears to be clear, then assume the clear verse is correct and the problematic one is some sort of exception.  Let’s look at the example they use to see how this should work.

“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:14–26, NASB95)

Compare this to these verses:

“Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,” (Romans 4:4–5, NASB95)

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:5–7, NASB95)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8–9, NASB95)

As the authors tell it, the last three quotes are clear statements of grace, and James should be interpreted in light of that: in relation to God, we are justified by faith, and James is speaking of justification before men.  But I can’t say I see it.  James says, “can that faith save him?”  I do not believe he is talking about being saved from men.  The example given about Abraham was a work that he performed because God asked it of him, and other men weren’t even around to see it.   Also, the statements about faith without works being dead and useless are unqualified and pretty clear.  In fact, the only reason the passage in James would be considered difficult is that a person that had no stake in the outcome would say that it clearly does conflict with the other verses that speak of grace.  To be clear, it is only difficult for the person that says inerrancy Must Be True.  This principle amounts to adding concepts to the difficult verses that they do not in fact say until the difficulty (the conflict) goes away.

6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage

Basically, certain passages have obscure meanings, because the words are rarely used or because it is unclear what the verse is referring to.  They raise the idea that if something is important, the Scripture will clearly teach it, and that if it isn’t clear, then it isn’t important.  This leads to a bit of a problem, though.  If the Bible is perfectly authored, then we really shouldn’t gloss over anything it has to say.

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” (2 Timothy 3:16, NASB95)

The Must Be True nature of this principle is clear when they say in their explanation that “God does not make mistakes in His Word; we make mistakes in trying to understand it.”  This principle is a pretty convenient way to sweep under the rug verses that are hard to deal with.  They do not provide an example, but to me this is one that qualifies:

“But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.” (1 Corinthians 11:5–6, NASB95)

Churches do a lot of tap-dancing around these verses, for obvious reasons.  It is generally regarded as a reflection of the author’s culture or a specific problem in the church to which the letter is written.  Because what it describes is only in one place, it is easy to put it in the “obscure” category and move on.  But it is something that the Bible says, and nowhere in the text does it indicate that it only applies to a limited audience.  It would actually be far easier to defend the idea that this verse is a historical relic if we didn’t have to contend with the idea that everything written was divinely orchestrated.

7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human characteristics

In their explanation of this, they say “But like Christ, the Bible is completely human, yet without error.  Forgetting the humanity of Scripture can lead to falsely impugning its integrity by expecting a level of expression higher than that which is customary to a human document.”

The bar is lower for other human documents because they are not purported to be divinely inspired and without error.  It is not reasonable to make such claims and then also say it is unfair to so strictly judge the text.

8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report

I agree with the idea that an account being incomplete does not make it false.  I am also fine with the idea that, in the situations where the Bible records the same event in more than one account, they can contain different details.  The problems are when the accounts contain such different details that they appear unrelated.  It is easy to lose sight of the fact that the individual books stood on their own before being collected into what we now know as the Bible.  The account in each book needs to be coherent in the context of that book.

The authors didn’t include an example, so I don’t know what they had in mind.  But the death of Judas illustrates for me the potential problems here.  We have these two accounts:

“And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.” (Matthew 27:5, NASB95)

“(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.” (Acts 1:18, NASB95)

The standard harmonization given here is that Judas hanged himself on a hill overlooking the field, then the rope broke, and he fell in the field and burst open.  Each account gives a piece of the story, and all is well.  The problem is that Acts, as an independent book, omits the most important detail of Judas’ death, the hanging.  On its own, it sounds like Judas died of an accident, or, if you want to read into it, perhaps divine retribution.  The fact that Judas died of his own volition and guilt is completely missing, thereby painting a misleading picture.

Now some will say that the Bible was never intended to be understood in pieces, that each statement must be considered in light of all the other relevant statements.  But there are problems with this idea.  We take for granted the access we have to the Bible in the modern era, where we can type in “Judas” into our Bible software and easily find all mentions of him.  For centuries, few people were literate, let alone able to afford their own books.  The Gutenberg Bible didn’t become available until the 1400’s, and the estimated number of copies is less than 200.  Before that, every version was copied by hand.  And then it wasn’t until the 1920’s that some parts of the U.S. reached 70% literacy.  So most people were only being exposed to whatever Scripture was taught as part of sermons.  For the layperson, there was no researching what the Bible said in its entirety on a given subject.  Even for the teachers, it had to be done manually, because the first concordance was not available until 1230, and was almost certainly not as comprehensive as those of today.  And with the example of Judas’ death it is obvious which pieces go together, but some doctrinal positions require balancing a number of verses against each other that aren’t nearly as obviously connected.  The idea of the Bible being a big jigsaw puzzle is a lot harder to work with 1000 or more years ago.

Go back even further, to when the events actually took place.  When Jesus gave a sermon, that might be the only thing those people ever heard.  The sermon itself needed to be self-contained and accurate on its own terms.  The other parts of the jigsaw puzzle wouldn’t be written until decades later.  It would be very unfortunate for his audiences if much that he said could not be correctly interpreted until many years later, perhaps not until after they were dead even, particularly the statements about salvation.

Still, this may all sound plausible to you in some way.  But what is then strange to me is that a divine author, presumably a much better communicator than any human, would orchestrate the accounts in such a way.  Why not guide a single author to write the full death of Judas, instead of two authors to write half, with no indication it is only a partial account?  It’s true, the separate stories do not prove it wasn’t divinely orchestrated.  But I am not trying to disprove the Bible.  I am looking for evidence in its favor.  A better organized account would provide better evidence that divine orchestration took place, but as it is, it is indistinguishable from two accounts written by two independent authors where at least one of them had their facts wrong.

9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations

It is reasonable to say that NT authors did not always need to quote verbatim from the OT.  No examples are given, however, so it is unclear what criticisms this is addressing.

10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones

The claim is that it is acceptable for different accounts to have differing details.  The example they use shows just how problematic a principle this is.  In Matthew’s account of the tomb after the resurrection, it says one angel was present, and in John’s, it says two.  They claim this is not a problem, and proceed to make the most confidently wrong statement in this chapter: “In fact, there is an infallible mathematical rule that easily explains this problem: wherever there are two , there is always one - it never fails!”  Two does not equal one, period.  If you asked me how many disciples Jesus had, and I answered “one”, I would be wrong.  I could not claim if there are twelve, there are one.  If a book costs $20, I could not accurately say it costs $1, on the “infallible” principle that you can’t pay $20 without paying $1.

They further say this would only be a problem if Matthew had explicitly said that there was only one angel.  But again, this is backwards.  It would only be not in conflict if Matthew said there was at least one angel.

This whole idea is a prime example of logic that makes sense only to someone that believes inerrancy Must Be True.  Someone neutrally weighing the premise of inerrancy would not reach this conclusion, and would almost certainly not be convinced when presented with it.  This is actually the major reason why The Case for Christ did not help out in this research.  It purports to be a hard-hitting examination of the claims of Christianity.  But when Strobel was presented with this same argument, he didn’t question it at all.  He represents himself as writing from the view of it Might Be True, but in reality he believes it Must Be True.  Because of that, his investigation didn’t add anything to my search.  I’ll have more to say about Strobel in a later article.

11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all it records

The idea is that when the Bible records untruthful statements made by a person, that does not make the Bible wrong.  The Bible is accurately recording a lie someone told.  This is perfectly reasonable as presented.  As with much of this, the problems come with the application of this idea.  There is an example they give earlier in the chapter that is relevant.

In this verse, King Saul is in a losing battle, and kills himself to avoid falling into the hands of his enemy:

“Now the Philistines were fighting against Israel, and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. The Philistines overtook Saul and his sons; and the Philistines killed Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchi-shua the sons of Saul. The battle went heavily against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was badly wounded by the archers. Then Saul said to his armor bearer, “Draw your sword and pierce me through with it, otherwise these uncircumcised will come and pierce me through and make sport of me.” But his armor bearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. So Saul took his sword and fell on it.” (1 Samuel 31:1–4, NASB95)

But in this account, a young man claims that he ended Saul’s life for him, out of mercy:

“So David said to the young man who told him, “How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?” The young man who told him said, “By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and behold, Saul was leaning on his spear. And behold, the chariots and the horsemen pursued him closely. “When he looked behind him, he saw me and called to me. And I said, ‘Here I am.’ “He said to me, ‘Who are you?’ And I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’ “Then he said to me, ‘Please stand beside me and kill me, for agony has seized me because my life still lingers in me.’ “So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the bracelet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord.”” (2 Samuel 1:5–10, NASB95)

The harmonization the authors present is that the young man lied to impress David.  And since the Bible is accurately recording his lie, there is no conflict.  But there are some problems with this.

The conflict in the accounts is not just about who actually killed Saul.  In the first account, Saul is afraid to fall into the hands of his enemies.  In the other account, Saul is not afraid, but rather he is in pain and mortally wounded, and seeks to be put out of his misery.  In the first account, after the armor bearer rejects his request, Saul kills himself.  In the second account, there is no armor bearer, and the young man is someone just passing by.  For both accounts to coexist, Saul would have had to ask his armor bearer, then ask the young man who happened to come along right at that moment, and then kill himself.

Some will say this only makes it more clear the young man is lying.  That does mean the young man would have needed to fabricate every detail of the story.  The problem is that nowhere in the text does it indicate this.  Harmonization that relies on speculation is not convincing and seems like a slippery slope.  Note that the story continues on with David calling for the young man’s execution on the spot for killing the Lord’s anointed (Saul).  That would have been an excellent time for the lad to confess, yet he says nothing.  This seems unlikely.  Obviously we can continue to speculate by saying that the author just chose not to record that.

So I do agree that the Bible can accurately record lies that people have stated...if the Bible actually says that they are lying.  Again it raises the idea that, if the text is divinely inspired and perfect, wouldn’t it be so much clearer to state the young man was lying and remove the appearance of conflicting text?  It could indeed be that the lying occurred and the text is inspired and without error, but it is indistinguishable from the alternative that the text is not inspired and has genuine conflicts.

12. Forgetting that the Bible uses non-technical, everyday language

Consider this quote from the authors in this section:

The Scriptures were written in ancient times by ancient standards, and it would be anachronistic to superimpose modern scientific standards upon them.  (Emphasis theirs)

Apologists seem to shift between two paradigms fluidly, according to the needs of their current argument.  In some contexts, they appeal to the divine inspiration of the text, that it is not subject to the limitations of ordinary human writings.  (This is how prophecy is represented.)  In other situations, such as here, they focus on the human instruments that did the writing and the limitations of humans.  But if God orchestrated the creation of this text, then clearly He wouldn't be limited by considerations of ancient and modern times.  If the Bible writers actually did demonstrate scientific knowledge that was ahead of their time, it would be just the sort of evidence that would carry weight with a non-believer.  (And some people claim that the Bible in fact does demonstrate anachronistic knowledge of science, but nothing I’ve found compelling.)  Given that the text conforms to the limits of its writers’ knowledge, it is indistinguishable from text that is not divinely inspired and therefore couldn’t exceed its writers’ knowledge.

They bring up this example:

“Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.” (Joshua 10:12–13, NASB95)

They point out that in modern times we still talk about sunrise and sunset, so saying the Sun stood still is a similar, non-technical description.  Fair enough.  But what the ancient writers wouldn’t know is just how much of a miracle they are describing, because they didn’t know the Earth is what is moving, not the Sun.  Imagine standing in a bus going 80 mph, and the driver slams on the brakes.  Now imagine the bus is going 1,000 mph, the approximate speed at the equator.  The text also says the Moon stopped moving.  All of the planets and their moons are in a complex dance of gravity, and the solar system as a whole is moving as part of a larger system.  Apparently God stopped the whole solar system and perhaps the galaxy we are in (and maybe beyond), suspending the laws of physics so we didn’t all go flying off the planet.  And then when the bus started up again (going 1,000 mph), suspending the laws of physics so we didn’t get crushed.  An omnipotent God could do all this, of course, but it also fits with the theory that this story is a fabrication of ancient writers that had no idea of the implications of what they wrote.

13. Assuming that round numbers are false

I’m not sure how much of an actual criticism this is.  They point to verses where large groups of people are described in round numbers, e.g. 100,000.  They do bring up another verse, though:

“Also he made the cast metal sea, ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits and its circumference thirty cubits.” (2 Chronicles 4:2, NASB95)

They point out that the ancient writers would have been fine with approximating ℼ as 3.  Fair enough, but I will point out that the circumference of a circle with diameter 10 is 31 and change, so we aren’t just talking about rounding some decimals.  It’s a matter of just how accurate inerrancy is supposed to be, I guess.

14. Neglecting to note that the Bible uses different literary devices

The authors list devices used in the Bible such as parables, metaphors, hyperbole, and so on and say it would be a mistake to take them literally.  This seems like a strawman argument to me.  I’m not sure anyone is raising criticisms of Biblical text based on literal readings of parables and the like, but maybe.

15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of Scripture, is without error

This quote from the authors summarizes this point: “They forget that God only uttered the original text of Scripture, not the copies.  Therefore, only the original text is without error.”

This leads to some commonly made assertions about the manuscripts, about how many copies there are, how few the errors there are, and the like.  The conservative viewpoint on these manuscripts is that the errors are relatively minor and infrequent, and thus the original can be reconstructed.  However, most scholars have a pretty different view.  Going into any detail about the manuscripts is too much to cover here, so I can only generalize, though I will touch on some aspects of the manuscripts for the Gospels in a later article.  The reality is a lot messier than it is presented in conservative circles.  There are many manuscripts, but the vast majority are copies of copies.  A lot of the earliest manuscripts are just scraps, and none of them are the originals.  There are significant gaps of time between the earliest manuscripts we have and the originals.

Now this is a lot to take in, and really I only bring it up because of this proposed principle.  Ultimately, my analysis in these articles does not rely on the manuscripts, just the end result we now have, and accordingly we don’t need to get hung up on the manuscripts.  But we should consider the principle that the authors propose here.  Namely, why would it be true?  Why would God go through the effort of divinely authoring the originals, but allow us to completely alter it as we see fit?  Radical alterations do indeed exist.  Thomas Jefferson made his own version of the Gospels where he eliminated most of the miracles, among other things.  Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own version of the Bible where certain verses have been altered to align with their theology.  This precisely illustrates the problem of divinely protecting only the original: distinct belief systems can spring up simply on the basis of changing the manuscripts.

And since we do not have originals of the manuscripts (this is accepted across the board), we really don’t have any idea of what changes are present in what we do have.  There is nothing to base this principle on except the idea that inerrancy Must Be True, but even if the principle  were true, it doesn’t help much anyway.

16. Confusing general statements with universal ones

The issue at hand is with statements in the Bible that are unqualified.  The authors state that it is unreasonable to assume these statements are always true, just usually.  The example they pick is in Proverbs, and then state that “proverbial sayings by their very nature offer only general guidance, not universal assurance”.

“When a man’s ways are pleasing to the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” (Proverbs 16:7, NASB95)

In an interesting but problematic use of logic, they then point out two exceptions to this in the Bible, and then claim that demonstrates that the statement was never meant to be universal (Paul was stoned and Jesus was crucified).  Let’s follow this line of thinking and see why it is problematic.

If a proverb offers only general guidance, what does a song offer?  A vague sentiment?  The following verses are not even expressed in an general way, such as “whoever” or “a man”, yet they are taken to be a universal truth:

“For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.” (Psalm 139:13–14, NASB95)

How about this verse?  Is it sometimes not true?

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever.” (Psalm 111:10, NASB95)

How about something that is not a song, but an explicit statement:

““Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32–33, NASB95)

So this is the problem: how are we supposed to know which unconditional statements are actually universal and which are general guidance?  If some of the unconditional statements are not universal, how do we know any of them are?  If a statement is less than universal, how much less?  Consider again the Proverbs verses this opened with.  In the modern age, do you think this verse is of much comfort to the Christians that are being killed around the world?  If that verse isn’t for those people, who is it for?  Our “enemies” in our workplaces?

If these were just the writings of men, like the Farmer’s Almanac, then we wouldn’t expect them to be anything more than insightful philosophical sayings.  But viewed as divine communication, the bar is much higher.  When we can see in the Bible that its own accounts provide counterexamples to the unconditional statements it makes, that is problematic.  Maybe they really can be explained as the authors describe, but the result is indistinguishable from statements that just weren’t true in the first place.

17. Forgetting that later revelation supersedes previous revelation

The authors state “Sometimes critics of Scripture forget the principle of progressive revelation.”  They state this as if this is some independently established knowledge rather than something that apologists created for this very purpose.  In any case, they give the example of humankind first being commanded to eat fruit and vegetables and then later being told to also eat meat.  In the story, there was a pretty significant event (the fall of man) in between those two statements, so such a change is reasonable.

But that doesn’t mean all change over time is reasonable.  If God gives conflicting moral codes over time, that is indeed a problem.  In a future article I will look at this more, so I won’t dive into that idea here.

Examples of contradictions

The preceding section was all about examining some principles that supposedly help explain apparent contradictions in the Bible.  In this section we will briefly examine some contradictions, beyond the examples already raised above.

Books about contradictions

This isn’t an example as such in the Bible, but rather an outside indicator.  Consider: if a joke is funny, you know it.  If you need to be told that it is funny, it isn’t.  Similarly, if a given text is clear and consistent, it speaks for itself.  The fact that there are so many books to explain why there are no contradictions in the Bible is a strong indication that it does indeed contain contradictions.  And not just a few.  Consider that the book the Evidence authors quoted from is called The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, not The Small Book.  They provide a list of some books dealing with this topic, a list that is twenty books long and starts in the 4th century.

Theology

One of the biggest indicators that the Bible has contradictions is the list of theological topics that have been endlessly debated, some of them starting not long after the time of Jesus.  This includes but is not limited to:

• Free will vs determinism

• Eternal security (once saved, always saved)

• Pre-, mid-, and post-tribulation Rapture

• Eternal punishment vs annihilation

• The role of baptism

• The gifts of the Spirit (what is considered one, are they active now?)

• Homosexuality

• Women in leadership

There are divisions that have brought about entire new sects of Christianity, even.  Now, almost certainly anyone that has been a Christian for a decent amount of time will look at the items in that list and be able to tell me what the right answer is for every one of them.  The problem is that other Christians will just as strongly know that the right answer is the direct opposite.  Even within a given church, I would be surprised if every member agreed on every one of those points, though they might not express it publicly.  A Bible that is inerrant and without contradiction should not produce this outcome.

Verses

Lastly, we will briefly examine some more examples of verse, some of which were compiled in Evidence.

Plant or humans first

In Genesis 1, humans are last in the order of creation.  But in the next chapter, we have:

“Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.” (Genesis 2:5–8, NASB95)

Apologists will say that there is no contradiction because this chapter is zooming in on details from the first chapter.  This is specifically talking about the garden of Eden not having any plants yet.  But note that the verses are not so qualified.  They say generally “in the earth”.  The garden is not planted until verse 8, after those statements.

Two or seven

Noah is initially told:

““And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. “Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.” (Genesis 6:19–20, NASB95)

And it says Noah did these things.  Then it says soon after:

““You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.” (Genesis 7:2–3, NASB95)

And it says Noah did these things too.  The claim is he was given more specific instructions later.  The problem is that nothing supports this, other than the desire for it to not be conflicting.  It says “every kind” in the first verses.  It says Noah did those things, before any supposed more specific instructions are given.  The second verses are not a qualification, as they include all the animals in the first verses, but now divided into clean and unclean.  It says Noah did those things too, so apparently he loaded the ark twice if there is no conflict.

Why mad at Balaam

“God came to Balaam at night and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise up and go with them; but only the word which I speak to you shall you do.” So Balaam arose in the morning, and saddled his donkey and went with the leaders of Moab. But God was angry because he was going, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as an adversary against him. Now he was riding on his donkey and his two servants were with him.” (Numbers 22:20–22, NASB95)

The clear problem here is that God granted permission to Balaam to go, and then was mad at him for going.  The authors of Evidence cite a different book that makes the claim that the Hebrew word translated as “because” has a rare but possible translation in this context of “when” or “as”.  That would mean God was mad at something that happened along the way, something completely unspecified in the text.  The only major translation to suggest this type of translation is the NIV, which is a less literal translation, and almost certainly does so to smooth over this very problem.  And if we accept this translation, then we are left with very confusing text.  But note that a few verses later:

“The angel of the LORD said to him, “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out as an adversary, because your way was contrary to me.” (Numbers 22:32, NASB95)

There is no indication of any problem other than Balaam’s “way” was a problem, also translated as “road” in other versions.

Not a contradiction, but what about the fact that Balaam was utterly unfazed by his donkey talking to him!

Never and always argue with a fool

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:4–5, NASB95)

The NASB tries to juggle the words around for “according” and “as” to break up the symmetry, but note how other translations handle these verses:

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:4–5, NKJV)

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own conceit.” (Proverbs 26:4–5, KJV 1900)

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:4–5, NIV84)

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:4–5, ESV)

The explanation that is quoted in Evidence is so convoluted that I am not going to bother to cover it in detail.  It revolves around the rationale for when you should and shouldn’t answer: not lowering yourself to a fool’s methods, but not letting them get away with foolishness, and so on.  However, this is reading so much into the text, and it doesn’t get around the fact that the text directly says to both answer and do not answer a fool’s folly.

The Gospels

There is quite a lot to talk about in regards to the agreement of the Gospels, and that will be covered as part of a later article.

What to make of all this

Ultimately there are only so many options regarding the accuracy of the Bible.  We can quibble about variations on these themes, but in practical terms, this is what we are faced with:

1. It is perfectly consistent with itself and our known reality.

2. The broad strokes are consistent with itself and our known reality, but some of the details are not.

3. The morals and theology are essentially true, but many of the stories are meant as illustrations, not literal historical records.

4. Some of the places and people may have been historical figures, but nothing is true beyond that.

Clearly, the most conservative view is option 1.  That view concedes there are changes in manuscripts, but maintains that we can reconstruct the inspired, perfect original text.  Bluntly, that view can only be held by someone that has decided that it Must Be True no matter what, accepting pretty much any argument supporting that notion.  Conservative apologists continue to work from the flawed idea that the Bible is inerrant unless proven otherwise.  This is simply not true: you can’t prove that I don’t have the ability to fly, but it doesn’t mean that I can.  Even if you accept their arguments, you are left with a Bible that claims to be option 1 but is indistinguishable from option 4.  A book that was purely a fabrication of humankind would also not describe anything in scientific terms beyond their time, it would have different details in different accounts of the same thing, it would make unconditional statements that turn out to not always be true, and so on.

Now that I’ve examined presumably the most robust arguments that can be made for the inerrancy of the Bible, I am quite unconvinced by them, and option 1 is no longer an option for me.  But I don’t need it to be perfect.  The truth of the major events and theological claims are what really matter.  A story that gets accidentally duplicated, two versions of an account that don’t quite line up, and so on, I can live with, given that these writings are from thousands of years in the past.  Accordingly, the rest of the articles will deal with the remaining options.

Next article: Morality and the existence of God