ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCIES/CONTRADICTIONS
Dr. Thompson says concerning inerrancy, "One may ask whether or not the
word applies to matters involving
every statement in the Bible
on cosmology, botany, and the other sciences."
1
Without hesitation, he attempts to show that the Bible in NOT
inerrant by citing multiple alleged Bible
Discrepancies/Contradictions. Unfortunately, Dr. Thompson
doesn't provide Bible references for all his alleged discrepancies,
so I have provided the ones he left out. In addition, at
times the references are terse, so it may not be possible to fully
understand the extent of his concern.
ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #1
SCRIPTURE: Gen 1:6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 20; Ps 19:1; 150:1; Eze 1:22,
23, 25, 26; 10:1; Dan 12:3 (provided by me--PBM)
ERROR TYPE: Scientific
DESCRIPTION: "Firmament" is not an accurate scientific term.
REPLY:
Although it is not apparent in
God's Holy Fire, evidently Dr.
Thompson's objection here is that "firmament" in Hebrew refers to a physical
object, such as a dome, instead of a gas. This is made clear in
The
Transforming Word, where they present "An Ancient Near-Eastern Model of the
Cosmos" showing a flat earth, with a physical dome over the earth representing
the dome of heaven, with stars and moon above this in the dome, and then
the waters above the dome.
2 The obvious implication by the author is that
this is the unscientific model found in the Bible also.
However, not all would agree with this hypothesis. First, it appears that
ancient Hebrew had no word for "gas," and so they had no way to express the
modern concept of "atmosphere." Second, Maunder says the following about
the firmament: "To the Hebrews the 'firmament' was the apparent void above, in
which the clouds float and the lights of heaven pursue their appointed paths."
3
In addition, Heard's apparent assumption of the flat earth is undoubtedly from
Isaiah 11:12 which speak of the "four corners of the earth" as well as Isaiah
44:24 which speaks of God who "...stretched out the heavens, who spread out the
earth by myself...." Now in regards to the expression, "the four corners
of the earth," Willis in his 1980 commentary on Isaiah, said this:
The expression four corner of the earth (vs. 12; cf. Job 37:3; Rev 7:1) do not
reflect an ancient notion that the earth was flat and the shape of a square or
rectangle. Deuteronomy 22:12 speaks of the four corners of a cloak, and
Ezekiel 7:2 of the four corners of the land of Israel, but in neither case is it
implied that the biblical writer thought that the cloak or the land of Israel
was square or rectangular. This is simply an idiomatic expression meaning
"entirety."4
In addition, Isaiah 40:22 appears to imply that the earth is indeed not
only "circular," but also a substantial three dimensional object.
The Hebrew word
chug in this verse can mean
either "circle" or "vault," but two prominent Hebrew-English Lexicons
prefer the meaning of "vault" for chug in Isaiah 40:22.
5,6
Contrary to this, most of the English translators choose "circle."
However, TMSG has "God sits high above the round ball of the earth" and
DRB has "It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth," both trying
to capture something of the three dimensional nature of this Hebrew
word. Furthermore, it would appear that a globe-shaped earth is
implied by Luke 17:34-36, since at the second coming of Christ, half of
the earth will be sleeping and half of the earth awake and working.
Therefore, the assumptions behind Dr. Thompson's proposed allegation
regarding the "firmament" appear to be faulty.
ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #2
SCRIPTURE: Parable of the mustard seed, Mt 13:31-32; Mk 4:30-32
(PBM)
ERROR TYPE: Scientific
DESCRIPTION: The mustard seed is not the smallest seed.
REPLY:
"No difficulty is seen in the fact that some seeds might
actually be smaller than a mustard seed. This trifling quibble
disappears in the ancient proverb, 'small as a grain of mustard
seed.' Besides, in the relative sense in which Christ spoke, it was
a literal fact. And if that is not enough, it could easily be
explained as an example of hyperbole, exaggeration for the sake of
emphasis."
7
It was proverbial in the use of the Rabbis for that which
was small.
8 Thus, we shouldn't be surprised to
find Jesus using it as the way the Jews understood its usage.
Ted
Stewart suggests the following solution:
- Jesus did not say the mustard seed is the smallest (superlative)
seed, but smaller (mikroteron =
comparative in Greek), than other seed in Palestine.
- Mark 4:31-32 Jesus compared mustard seed with other seed
sown by farmers in Palestine.
- In the Mishna
Jewish rabbis who lived before, during and after Jesus, also used
the mustard seed to refer to very small things.9
Note that Stewart's reference to
mikroteron as
being stated in the "comparative degree" as well as its English meaning
is supported by Davis.
10
ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #3
SCRIPTURE: Raising of Jairus' daughter Mt 9:18-26; Mk 5:21-43; (Lk
8:40-56 PBM)
ERROR TYPE: Inconsistencies
DESCRIPTION: Inconsistencies in the narratives, where Mark says
daughter is at the point of death, and Matt says that she has just
died.
REPLY:
Mark's account is the longest of the three synoptic
gospels and gives the most detail. Matthew is the
shortest account. Both Mark and Luke include a message
sent from Jairus' home indicating that his daughter had
died. Therefore it is clear that Jairus had left his
daughter near death and came to Jesus with faith he could
heal her, but not knowing if she had died until the word
came to him that she was dead. All three accounts show
her as being dead before Jesus arrived with Jairus.
Thus, "Matthew omits the message from the house (Luke 8:49)
and states the case briefly: she is just dead; the father
had left her dying, and he thought perhaps that she was dead
by the time he came to Jesus."
11 Matthew's
shortening of the account is probably pressured by the restrictions
of scroll length, especially since he gave so much space to Christ's
discourses.
ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #4
SCRIPTURE: Timing of the triumphal entry, cursing fig tree,
cleansing temple Mk 11:1-19; Mt 21:1-22
ERROR TYPE: Inconsistencies
DESCRIPTION: Inconsistencies in the narratives where in Mk it was
the next day after the triumphal entry that these things happened,
whereas it was immediately after these events in Mt.
REPLY:
Ted Stewart suggests the following solution:
- Day one: Mark 11:1-11
and Matthew 21:1-11.
- Mark and Matthew report Jesus' triumphal entry into
Jerusalem.
- Mark, not Matthew, records Jesus' return to Bethany on
day 1.
- Day two: Mark 11:12-19
and Matthew 21:12-17.
- Only Mark tells of the trip from Bethany to Jerusalem on
day 2.
- Only Mark tells of the cursing of the fruitless fig tree
on the journey from Bethany to Jerusalem on the morning of
day 2.
- Both Mark and Matthew record that Jesus entered the
Temple and drove out the money changers and merchants on day
2, though Matthew does not specify that it was on day 2 as
Mark did.
- At the end of day 2 Matthew specifies that they returned
to Bethany, whereas Mark simply says they left Jerusalem.
- Day three: Mark 11:20-28
and Matthew 21:18-23.
- Mark and Matthew report that Jesus returned to Jerusalem
on the day after the Temple cleansing. Only Mark says this
was day 3.
- Only Matthew says Jesus cursed the fig tree that
morning.
- Only Matthew tells us that the fig tree immediately
(instantly) withered after this curse and that the
apostles were amazed.
- Mark 11:21, however, reports a different reaction on the
part of Peter when he saw the withered tree: "Peter
remembered and said to Jesus, Rabbi, look! The fig tree you
cursed has withered.
- "The fact Peter "remembered" the curse, implies that he
was referring to Jesus' curse on day 2, not day 3." Stewart
adds, "Matthew and Mark supplement and complement each
other's records, giving us a full picture of what happened,
without contradiction."12
ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #5
SCRIPTURE: Mt 27:9
ERROR TYPE: Wrong citation
DESCRIPTION: Actual citation is for Zechariah 11:13. Instead,
Matthew says it was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah.
REPLY:
Mt 27:9-10 does not appear to be even a loose translation of Zech
11:13. According to J. P. Lewis, the citation "...is
independent of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text."
13 Since there is considerable dissimilarity in these
two passages, it seems ill-advised
to insist that Zechariah is the actual citation. Lewis lists the following possible solutions:
Efforts at solving the problem of attributing the passage to
Jeremiah include the following suggestions: (1) that there
is a mistake in transcription; (2) that Jeremiah stands as a
name for the group of prophets of which Jeremiah and
Zechariah are a part; (3) that a later unlearned writer
added the word "Jeremiah"; (4) that Zechariah preserves a
statement from Jeremiah not found elsewhere; and (5) that
the citation is composite, using material from both prophets
and thereby attributed to Jeremiah. The solution to the
question is not known.14
Since all the early manuscripts
confirm "Jeremiah" in Mt 27:9, there in no ground to say Mt
27:9 does not refer to Jeremiah. Therefore, it appears
that this may be a conceptual/figurative fulfillment of prophecy rather
than a literal fulfillment. Perhaps the citation to
Jeremiah is because of the material in Jer 18:1-6 and
19:1-14 about the potter's field, and how the broken pots
were good for nothing, just like the children of Israel at
the time of Christ's death. Those people in Jeremiah's time
sacrificed their sons to foreign gods in the
potter's field. And they sacrificed God's Son too.
Perhaps it was this material coupled with the citation in
Zechariah to which Matthew was referring. If
so, it would be reasonable to attribute this to Jeremiah, as
he is the more prominent of the two prophets.
Certainly Mark does this in 1:2-3, where he quotes Mal 3:1 as
well as Isa 40:3, but attributes it to Isaiah since he was
the more prominent prophet.
15
ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #6
SCRIPTURE: Luke 2:2
ERROR TYPE: Historically inaccurate.
DESCRIPTION: The census under Quirinius was held in A.D. 6, although
Luke's Gospel places the census before the death of Herod
the Great, who died in 4 B.C.
REPLY:
"According to Josephus (Antiq., 17:13, 15; 18:1,1) Quirinius became governor of Syria A.D. 6, when he took a
census in Judea, which excited the opposition related by
Luke in Acts 5:37."
16 This might appear to
be an inaccuracy on Luke's part since Jesus was born several
years earlier than 6 A.D. However, it is clear that
Luke knew the exact timing of this census because of what he
wrote in Acts 5:37. In addition, the known accuracy of
Luke as an historian should make us assume that he is not
wrong in what he wrote. Dr. Ash summarizes potential
solutions as follows:
- A damaged inscription in the Lateran Museum appears to refer to Quirinius, and indicates that he served for two
terms. However, that does not solve the problem since
it is known that Saturninus and Varus served from 9 B.C.
until 4 B.C. as governors of Syria.
- The census may have begun during Quirinius' first office
in 10 B.C., but was delayed in Palestine until the time of
Jesus' birth in 6 B.C. Historical research do show
that Augustus Caesar did order a census of Roman citizens in
8 B.C. and in 6 A.D.
- The word translated "governor" was a general term that could
refer to any ruling office. This opens the possibility that Quirinius could have held some other office
that was connected to the census when Jesus was born.17
In addition to these contributions from Dr. Ash, an
alternative reading of 2:2 in the ESV Bible is, "This was
the registration before..." This is based on the
translation of
prootee,
which can mean first, before (earlier, formerly), prominent,
best, or most important,
18 and it is clear from
Swanson's reference that all these translations of
prootee
are used in the New Testament.
Obviously the final answer is not in at this time, but the
remarkable accuracy of Luke should not be forgotten here.
"ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #7
SCRIPTURE: Acts 5:33-39
ERROR TYPE: Historically inaccurate.
DESCRIPTION: Gamaliel's speech refers sequentially to uprisings by
Theudas and Judas, but Josephus shows that Judas came before
Theudas (
Antiquities of the Jews 20.97-99).
REPLY:
Dr. Ash, commenting on Theudas in Acts 5:36, writes the
following:
The only man known by that name from secular
history is mentioned by Josephus (Antiquities XX. v. 1), but
his revolt came about A.D. 44, after Judas, and indeed,
after this speech by Gamaliel. Some have argued that the
author of Acts, inventing this part of Gamaliel's speech,
was caught, due to ignorance, in a serious anachronism. But
Luke was a careful historian, and we prefer to think
Gamaliel may have referred to another rebel named "Theudas",
not mentioned elsewhere. Josephus notes that there were "10,000 other
disorders" transpiring at this period. This could have been one of them.19
Again, the remarkable accuracy of Luke should not be
forgotten here.
ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #8
SCRIPTURE: Lk 4:16-30; Mt 13:53-58; Mk 6:1-6.
ERROR TYPE: Incorrect sequence of events.
DESCRIPTION: Luke shows that Jesus' return to his home synagogue
occurs at the beginning of his ministry. But Matthew
and Mark show that it comes some time later.
REPLY:
Coffman, in his commentary on Mark 6:2, says the
following: "This was the second rejection of Jesus at
Nazareth, the first being recorded in Luke 4:15ff. Matthew
13:54-58 is parallel to this account of the second
rejection."
20
In Stevens' and Burton's
A Harmony of the Gospels,
they clearly show that the rejection in Luke 4:16-30 is the
"First rejection at Nazareth," and that the "Second
rejection at Nazareth" is recorded in Mt 13:54-58 and Mk
6:1-6a.
21
Gospel Parallels shows a similar distinction in their
outline.
22
McMillan in his commentary on Mark says the following:
Considering the elements that make up this situation, it
would not be impossible that such an incident occurred more
than once. There seems to be a definite individuality to the
record of a similar incident in Luke (Luke 4:16-30). There
seems to be no common agreement among commentators as to
whether the Lukan passage represents a variation of this
same incident or the record of another different but similar
encounter.23
Therefore, it seems reasonable to view Luke's account as the
first rejection, and the accounts of Matthew and Mark as the second
rejection.
ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #9
SCRIPTURE: John 2:13-17
ERROR TYPE: Incorrect sequence of events.
DESCRIPTION: John's gospel shows Jesus' cleansing of the temple at
the beginning of his ministry, but the synoptic gospels show
it during the last week of Jesus' life.
REPLY:
Frank Pack, in his commentary on the Gospel of
John, notes that there are significant differences between
the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus'
ministry found in John, and the cleansing of the temple
found in the Synoptic Gospels at the close of his ministry.
He then says,
A common solution given today is that the cleansing at the close of
Jesus' ministry is the only one which took place, and that John located
that cleansing at the beginning of Jesus' ministry for purposes of his
own. John's account, in other words, is not in its proper place
chronologically. This overlooks the differences between the accounts and
rests upon the assumption that there could have been only one cleansing.
He then argues that since Jesus' ministry was 3 years in
length, there is no reason to think there wasn't 2
cleansings, and that the first cleansing was the reason for
the early opposition by the Jews.
24
Burton Coffman, in commenting on John 2:13, says the
following:
The cleansing of the temple about to be related should not be
confused with a second cleansing during the final week of our
Lord's life on earth (Matt. 21:12f; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45). In
this cleansing, Jesus made use of a scourge, but none was
mentioned in the synoptic accounts of the second cleansing.25
In their commentary on John 2:13-22, the ESV Study Bible
says this:
The first major confrontation with Jewish leaders in John's Gospel takes
place on the occasion of Jesus' clearing of the Jerusalem temple at the
Jewish Passover. (The Synoptic Gospels record a second, later temple
clearing, just prior to the crucifixion; see Mark 11:15-19 par.).
Therefore, there is no adequate reason to reject the concept
that the temple was cleansed by Jesus both at the beginning
of his ministry and at the end also.
ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #10
SCRIPTURE: John
ERROR TYPE: Incorrect sequence of events
DESCRIPTION: Vague, generalized complaint.
REPLY:
Clearly the Gospel of John is not like the Synoptic
Gospels in some ways. For example, John gives us a
different view of Jesus from the beginning: Jesus is God.
However, the Synoptic Gospels give us a similar view at the
end. William Hendriksen, in his commentary on The
Gospel of John, points out the striking similarities.
Hendriksen notes the following:
- There is not contradiction in doctrine.
- The general scheme of events is also the same in
both cases.
- The "words of Jesus" as recorded in the Synoptics are not
at all inconsistent with those recorded in the Fourth
Gospel.
- Even on minor points it has not been established
that the Fourth Gospel is in conflict with the
Synoptics.26
Thankfully, the Gospel of John gives us a complimentary view
of Christ, things that we that we need to know about him,
things that we need to hear from him. These wonderful
things about Jesus do not in anyway conflict with the
Synoptics. But the picture of Jesus is so much fuller
for the disciple of Christ after reading the Gospel of John.
Thank God for the Gospel of John!
ALLEGED BIBLE DISCREPANCY/CONTRADICTION #11
SCRIPTURE: Acts 9:1-18; 22:3-16; 26:9-18 (PBM).
ERROR TYPE: Inconsistent details
DESCRIPTION: Conflicting accounts regarding Saul's conversion.
This discrepancy is provided as a story about one of the
students who observed the differing accounts of Paul's
conversion in Acts. The student thought that any
inconsistency within a story was sufficient evidence to
compromise his faith. He found those pressing
inerrancy of the Bible to be weakening his faith.
REPLY:
I have no assurance that the details of this story are real
or fabricated. The purpose is not to formally announce any specific
alleged Bible discrepancy, but rather to tell fundamentalists that
they are destroying peoples' faith by trying to defend the Bible.
At any rate, if this is a formal complaint regarding the differences
in the accounts of Paul's conversion, those differences are not
presented by Dr. Thompson. The first account of Paul's conversion
is found in Acts 9:1-18, and it is straightforward. The second
account in Acts 22:3-16 was presented by Paul as a prisoner to the
Jews in Jerusalem who were trying to kill him. The third account is
in Acts 26:9-18 and was presented by Paul as a prisoner to King
Agrippa and Festus, along with many high-ranking persons in the
political and military realms. These accounts are different because
of the differing audiences and circumstances. However, there are no
contradictions between the accounts. Rather, we get a fuller
picture of what happened by reading all accounts. Think about this:
Luke is one of the most careful historians in history. Do you
really think that Luke was just throwing words around, doing
whatever he liked? Dr. Thompson is in essence saying that Luke was
contradictory with Luke! The fact that these accounts are not all
the same reflect honest reporting, and this reflects reality instead
of fantasy.
After presenting his formal allegations against the Bible in order
to try and defeat the concept of inerrancy, he makes this statement:
These problems are not insoluble. More information might
actually resolve many of these difficulties or future research might
clarify specific discrepancies between the biblical narrative and
our knowledge of secular history. Often the answer involves
the very simple matter of the genre of the writing. The
ancient writers worked with standard that are not our own.27
However, his comments do not appear to represent full disclosure. Many
of the references I have given are references from men who taught
Bible at the same facility just a few years ago, and who published
commentaries in the same
Living Word Commentary series that
Dr. Thompson contributed his 2 Corinthians and Hebrews commentaries
to, and all were published from the same ACU Press. Dr. Thompson knows these people
and their writings.
But he did
not include even a shred of their learning and scholarship to
mitigate his allegations against the Bible. The
Living
Word Commentary, with all its individual commentaries, are at
this moment available at the ACU Library. So
much is already known concerning these alleged contradictions, and
these answers to Dr. Thompson's allegations against the
Bible are very suitable. Why did he not mention this
mitigating information from his own colleagues? Every honest scholar I have read always mentions
those who do not agree with him, and considers their positions and
comments on their evidences. Even Darwin in his
On the
Origin of the Species, openly admitted the weaknesses in his
Theory of Evolution, and commented on those potential theory
killers. Why do we not find that kind of openness and honesty
in this chapter of
God's Holy Fire?
The goal of this chapter in
God's Holy Fire is to remove
from the reader the sense that the New Testament is authoritative
for our lives and our worship today. These are details that
the authors
don't think we need. We just need to know that the Bible is inspired to
save us, but not to instruct us about our 21st century morality or
worship.
This is the face of Liberal
Protestantism.
