Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Simple mistakes in the Bible
Could perhaps the people who rewrote the Bible make those mistakes?
Such things are expected. Ancient authors made plenty of mistakes, and I see no reason why the writers of the NT should be expected to be exempt. Given that the Jewish canon was hardly fixed at the time and the evidence of a mass of apocryphal literature floating around, I wouldn't be surprised that the authors are wrong. However, we have to remember that we are comparing them to our nice editions of the texts, and it's quite possible they were using texts with a copyist's errors, or even texts that said something different. That one of these errors is "corrected" by Daniel is an indication to me that if we're looking at the use of written sources by the NT authors (which by no means is guaranteed), since the textual history of that book is convoluted. As for copyist errors, at least the former is a good possibility. I've worked on Latin Biblical manuscripts, and I can say with certainly that the medieval copyists really couldn't make up their mind on how to spell Nebuchadnezzar! While spelling variations of particularly Hebrew names is so common that they will not appear in critical apparati since every manuscript contains numerous examples of inconsistent spelling. The could be any number of explanations for the latter example, although I'm more inclined to think it was an original error than a later textual problem.
I think it's to be expected but acknowledged in discussion. You don't get anywhere with people if you say there are no mistakes in the Bible and the person you are speaking with can name over fifty.
It depends on your view of apologetics and really on what it means to be a Christian.For those on the fundamentalist/conservative evangelical end the answer is to show that such mistakes (contradictions) are not really mistakes. We've met many like that on this board. So Jesus was not naming the wrong priest in Mark 2, for example, he was speaking of...well, I am not sure how that one is reconciled but it is.
I think if you look at a book like "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" or other typical apologetic works, they go in a foundationalist sort of style with each brick building on the last. The Bible (as inerrant) is a brick in that foundation; if there are errors then throw the whole thing out (again, we've heard people say that).
It seems to me that in this view you may have Jesus at the center but you have a whole lot of other surrounding beliefs that prop up that central belief; knock one down and the whole thing crashes.
In my opinion, you just admit there are errors and say they are secondary to the person and mission of Jesus. We can figure out if it was Jesus who named the wrong priest, or Mark, or a copyist later. As an apologist, we tear down all barriers to faith in Jesus and in this case the "tearing down" simply is to say such things are not a big deal.
Lee ... For lack of time I will not address all of the alleged mistakes you point out, however, I will address one off the top of my head. Daniel did not make a mistake when he referred to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar's father. Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar's grandfather. As such, it would be common in Hebrew to refer to him as "father" - as in forefather. In fact, there is no Hebrew word to my knowledge that can be translated as "grandfather." Daniel was merely speaking in terms customary to his culture and language. The mistake you allude to should be attributed to your scholarship rather than the authors of Scripture ... Which often seems to be the case when you list all the errors you've found.
This isn't to say that some minor scribal errors can't be found in our copies of the original manuscripts (as I've pointed out before script inerrancy can only be attributed to the original manuscripts). What disturbs me, however, is that someone may read your complaints and assume you are accurate when in fact they often simply reflect lazy scholarship.
Clark
You err, Clark. Daniel's error is well-known among Bible scholars...except, apparently, you. I'm not presenting anything new at all with these examples.Daniel 5:22 names Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Other verses use the word father. Some versions interpret this to mean "predecessor" (certainly not grandfather; there is simply no reason whatsoever to believe Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus are blood relatives) but this is no more than an attempt to gloss over an obvious error in the Bible. That is not scholarship; that is seeking out explanations to fit inflexible beliefs.
I really do get tired of your insinuations that my research is lazy, while yours is valid, when the truth is always just the opposite.
David wrote: " So Jesus was not naming the wrong priest in Mark 2, for example, he was speaking of...well, I am not sure how that one is reconciled but it is."The reason i bring this topic up is because that is how I once viewed apologetics. A desperate attempt to reconcile. Book after book, webpage after webpage, research project after research project, trying to make sense of the inconsistencies of Bible. The problems list in the hundreds, so the reconciliations grow exponentially, and just get sillier and sillier.
This is the view I got from reading Rod: "There's always an explanation ... if I can't think of one, that doesn't mean there isn't one ..." But why would someone make up all these bizarre explanations for the Bible's errors? Isn't it easier to just tweak your beliefs a little to make room for the probable truth?
So I never held a high regard for apologetics, and I think many share my opinion ... and always will, until the discipline quits trying to defend the indefensible.
Lee wrote: "Mistakes happen. For example, Matthew quotes a saying from Zechariah about 30 pieces of silver, and attributes it to Jeremiah. Daniel says Nebuchadnezzar is the father of Belshazzar, when it's real..."Whether or not one believes the Bible is inspired (I do believe it’s an inspired book), one ought to concede that the books in the Bible are ancient documents with an excellent pedigree of documentary history when compared to other documents of comparable age. In other words, the books of the Bible as represented by their archaeological manuscripts are data. As data, these manuscripts and what they say ought to be respected. When two pieces of data appear to be in contradiction, one ought to reconcile them if possible, rather than proclaim one or both data points in error. Take for example the second case, Lee cited:
“Daniel says Nebuchadnezzar is the father of Belshazzar, when it's really Nabonidus.”
In Daniel Chapter 5, the ESV gives the alternate translation of “predecessor” for “father” in the three cases cited in Chapter 5 (v11, v13, and v18). Geisler and Howe in When Critics Ask, point out that for many years, even the mention of Belshazzar was considered a mistake by Bible critics because no mention was made of Belshazzar in Greek and Babylonian accounts (note instead of regarding the Bible as data, these early critics decided to put the Bible on trial and cite other data against it—actually they were arguing that absence of evidence was evidence of absence). Interestingly enough subsequent archaeological evidence corroborated the Biblical account. There was a Belshazzar, most likely the son of Nabonidus, who reigned in Babylon as co-regent from 553 B.C. onward when Nabonidus went on an extended trip. Indeed Nabonidus was in Tema in North Arabia when Babylon was over thrown. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, in an article by W. White, tells a similar story. It’s interesting that Daniel was made the third ruler of the Kingdom (after Nabonidus and Belshazzar). As White states:
“Nebuchadrezzar is named as the father of Belshazzar (5:11, 18); this does not contradict the Babylonian texts which refer to Belshazzar as the son of Nabonidus, since the latter was a descendant in the line of Nebuchadrezzar and may well have been related to him through his wife.”
When calling Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar's father, the book of Daniel was simply following Middle East convention of biological father, grandfather etc. all being fathers. After all Abraham was gathered to his fathers (plural), the Pharisees considered Abraham their father, and Jesus is the son of David. These all follow the same pattern.
What’s amazing to me is how solidly the Bible, both Old and New Testaments are linked into history. These books don’t just make theological claims, they constantly cite history and have been corroborated time and time again. To me, this is absolutely remarkable.
@LeeWhat's interesting is there are actually two types of errors made in the Bible. One type is the one you mentioned, the writers got some of the details wrong, and another type is when translators copied wrong or added to the text. On of the biggest challenge for Bible scholars is trying to find what the original writers wrote and what was a later addition.
One of the best known example of this is the ending of Mark. Many people don't realize there are actually three different endings to Mark depending on which early source you're looking at. The NRSV actually includes all three endings. There's the traditional ending found in most Bibles today. There's the shorter ending where it just stops after verse 8 and verses 9-18 are nowhere to be found. And there's a third ending which says after verse 8:
"And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."
So which ending was the original ending written by the author of Mark? I tend to agree with those that believe Mark originally ended at verse 8. Later Christians, finding the ending a little abrupt, added their own, more satisfactory ending. Two independent additions were added with the longer one eventually becoming more favored until all later copies only contained the longer ending.
Chapters 32-37 of Job would be another example of a possible late addition to the original text since Elihu is not mentioned at all before then, and he's not mentioned afterwards either. Almost like a later scribe didn't like the overall message of the book of Job so he added his own opinion in the form of Elihu.
Lee wrote: "Mistakes happen. For example, Matthew quotes a saying from Zechariah about 30 pieces of silver, and attributes it to Jeremiah. Daniel says Nebuchadnezzar is the father of Belshazzar, when it's real..."I’ve broken my post into sections since my first post was very long.
Lee, cited Mark 2:26, as an example of another “mistake.”
Mark 2:26 reads (ESV):
“how he [David] entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence …”
Geisler and Howe in When Critics Ask is also helpful here. It’s true, Ahimelech was the priest David spoke to at the time of this incident as shown in 1 Sam. 21:1-6. However Ahimelech was killed and his son Abiathar escaped. Later Abiathar was fulfilling high priestly duties by consulting the Urim and Thummim on the high priestly ephod on David’s behalf (1 Sam 30:7). So when Jesus says “in the time of Abiathar” or “in the days of Abiathar” that does not necessarily imply that Abiathar was high priest at that moment. High priest is an adjective to identify the correct Abiathar. If I were relating a story about Abraham Lincoln before he became President, I might say “Lincoln, the President” (to distinguish him from other Lincolns) …”
Why mention Abiathar at all? My guess is that there was some conversation before the part that was recorded and Abiathar somehow linked to that previous topic of conversation. This is only a guess.
A final note. Jesus was in a very hostile environment. If he had made a simple mistake such as confusing two priests, when the Pharisees knew their scriptures backwards and forward, it would never have escaped notice. They didn't call him up short because, they understood what he meant. He was in line with how people spoke in those days.
Subsequent copyists didn't “correct” the text even though they may have felt Ahimelech would have been clearer. This shows how committed the copyists were to preserving the original text and not eliminating problems and apparent inconsistencies.
See also the Jewish encyclopedia on Abiathar http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/art....
@PeterMaybe Jesus didn't get it wrong. Humans don't always have the best memories. Try repeating word for word something that you heard yesterday. I'm guessing you'll get at least one of the words wrong. Now try doing it for something you heard 30 years ago. I'm cautious of equating everything I read in the Bible as being the actual words of Jesus. No doubt his basic message would have been remembered and come through in the texts, but I have a hard time believing it's an accurate word for word retelling exactly the way Jesus originally said it.
Lee wrote: "I really do get tired of your insinuations that my research is lazy, while yours is valid, when the truth is always just the opposite. "I am not insinuating it Lee. I am stating it outright. You are either intellectually dishonest or a lazy scholar. Five minutes of research would have yielded multiple experts who disagree with your take on Daniel chapter 5. Our intent should be to engage Scripture honestly and if I am being honest there are difficult passages within Scripture and even some that contain minor Scribal errors - which is why I am careful with my definition of inerrancy. Daniel 5:22 simply isn't difficult or an error.
And considering this is an apologetics group I felt such a position should be countered. Of course, as always, people are free to do their own research and decide if your point is valid or not.
Clark
Clark, "intellectually dishonest" is a perfect description for you. There is no honesty in making up bizarre explanations (see the lame one Peter repeats about Ahimelec) when, by a wide margin, the logical choice is to recognize error. Can you think of any other historical record that contains no errors? Why do you imagine it to be so of the bible? If you were not predisposed to believe no errors existed, there is no possible way you would reach that conclusion ... it's statistically nearly impossible that NONE of the hundreds of errors are really errors. You have to have a predisposition toward that belief to even consider it reasonable. That is, pure and simple, intellectual dishonesty.
Why do you believe such a strange thing as inerrancy, anyway? It sure has tinted the way you read the Bible.
I'm going to side with Lee on this one, I think the author of Mark just made a mistake. Just because there are possible ways to explain away a mistake doesn't mean those explanations are correct. I'll even give an example that I think most here would agree with. In the Book of Mormon it mentions horses and pigs but there weren't horses and pigs in South America when these events were supposed to have taken place. When I mention this to a Mormon apologist they'll usually tell me something along the lines of, "They were just using words they knew to describe animals that looked similar. So when they're talking about pigs they're probably just talking about tapirs since they look so similar to pigs." Does anyone here buy that argument? It's an argument that allows them to maintain their world view of the Book of Mormon being equal with the Bible as the word of God, but for me it seems more likely Joseph Smith just messed up. I think the same thing is happening here. The author of Mark just made a mistake.
Lee wrote: "Can you think of any other historical record that contains no errors? Why do you imagine it to be so of the bible?"I stopped reading your post here because you evidently did not read mine. Thanks.
Clark
Typical of your approach to truth, Clark.
Lee wrote: "Typical of your approach to truth, Clark."Lee ... you have not seen me anywhere in this thread claim there is no such thing as errors. In fact, I admitted that in our copies of the original manuscripts I do believe scribal errors have worked their way into the text. I also admitted there are difficult passages.
I do believe that in your zeal to discredit the Bible, however, you often assert certain passages are in error when they obviously are not. The instance you cited in Daniel is one such example.
I'll admit you are correct though that it is unfair for me to assume lazy scholarship or liberal bias or intellectual dishonesty. For that I apologize. I will not apologize, however, for challenging your view on Scripture.
As for truth ... you are right. I do assume the Bible contains truth and I will not apologize for it. I also believe in inerrancy when defined correctly. I will not apologize for that either.
This gap between our definitions of truth is perhaps why we disagree so much.
Clark
Clark, I respect your beliefs, and should apologize too. I know better than to claim lazy scholarship on your part, though I honestly believe it is lazier than mine, and cite this discussion as evidence. I also still believe that tinting your scholarship with a belief system is intellectual dishonesty, though. The instance cited in Daniel is a perfect example; there is no way it "obviously is not an error" when any critical Bible scholar (any scholar without a preexistent bias) recognizes it as such.
You should challenge my view and I would expect no less, though I think it is unhelpful to make it personal. I DO understand your stance on inerrancy; you've repeated it so many times, how could I not? In my observation, it basically amounts to "If there is no way to wiggle out of an error, I'll assume it's a scribal error, because that keeps my preexisting belief intact." That's just an out to cover your bases. I find that a step up from Rod's stance, but not a very big step.
Anyhow, I recognize your frustration with critical scholarship (who likes to have their beliefs challenged?), but I do hope our discussions can get less personal. I'm extending my apology for any attitudes I've copped.
I also kind of wish you would get over the idea that I am discrediting the Bible. From my perspective, I am doing just the opposite; I'm making it real, something which can be respected and appreciated. In doing so, I recognize I discredit conservative Christian beliefs, though...and honestly I can't think of a single reason to believe in ANY version of inerrancy.
I also still believe that tinting your scholarship with a belief system is intellectual dishonesty, though. The instance cited in Daniel is a perfect example; there is no way it "obviously is not an error" when any critical Bible scholar (any scholar without a preexistent bias) recognizes it as such. The most dangerous "preexistent bias" is the one you don't know about. I think everyone has preexistent biases, everyone has "belief systems". Lee, you have them just as much as Clark or I or anyone else does. It is trickery to deem all those who agree with you as "critical scholars" and then announce that "critical scholars" all agree - you've stacked the deck going in.
I am sure there are critical scholars on the conservative side - people just as credentialed as anyone on the liberal side. The liberals have a Borg, the conservatives have NT Wright. Of course, many conservatives see Wright as too liberal, but they've got a Darrel Bock or DA Carson.
At any rate, here is my question:
Lee - has there ever been a time you read something in the Bible, thought it was a contradiction, and later found what you consider a good explanation/reconciliation? If the answer is no then maybe your bias is showing.
Clark or Peter - Have there ever been times you read something you thought was a contradiction, researched it and found the attempted reconciliation's unsatisfying? If the answer is no, your bias is showing.
I come down that while we can try to reconcile such things, and perhaps some answers are more satisfying then others, we ought not get sidetracked too much. I couldn't care less about Nebu-however-you-spell-it's dad or uncle or mailman. It is completely irrelevant to my Christian faith. Jesus (or Mark's) mistake about a priest is getting closer. But ultimately these are peripheral to the person and work of Jesus and the question of whether you are on the mission or not.
I think the apologist can offer whatever he/she finds helpful. Just say, "some scholars think it might be reconciled like this, others are not so sure, here is what I think...but really, are you living out Jesus' vision for the world or not?"
David, maybe my bias is showing, but your wisdom is showing.I'm not sure I've ever taken a stance on a contradiction and had that stance contradicted in my mind. However, there are times when I've taken a stance on a too-liberal side and had to draw back to a more conservative understanding. One is the discussion we had here on slavery in the Bible.
The term "critical scholar," for me, represents a willingness to examine the Bible critically, rather than starting with a bias based on faith. This is no different than a critical examination of any historical document. I am a strong proponent of the historical-critical method, as you probably know.
Lee wrote: "The instance cited in Daniel is a perfect example; there is no way it "obviously is not an error" when any critical Bible scholar (any scholar without a preexistent bias) recognizes it as such. "Lee ... your claim that you have no "preexistent bias" amazes me to no end. This translates to "I am perfect and nearly everyone who reads the Bible is a moron."
You most definitely have a preexistent bias. I do as well ... the only difference is that I can own up to and properly define mine. On the other hand, you get bent out of shape when yours is pointed out.
David ... I'm not ignoring your post and will get back to it soon enough. Thanks.
Clark
What exactly is my preexistent bias, Clark? That people who write history sometimes make mistakes?
David wrote: "Clark or Peter - Have there ever been times you read something you thought was a contradiction, researched it and found the attempted reconciliation's unsatisfying? If the answer is no, your bias is showing."The answer to this question is obviously yes. My view on inerrancy doesn't prevent me from recognizing different types of errors in the copies of Scripture we have available. In fact, there are all kinds of different errors we may run into. For instance (this is all off the top of my head with no citations so forgive me). We may run into Scribal error (remember it was copied by hand), translation error (when we read the Bible in English we are essentially reading a commentary), context error (location is everything in real estate but context is everything in understanding Scripture), and errors of interpretation (perhaps we're reading something as literal when it is intended as a metaphor or hyperbole or some other figure of speech ... heck, our problem may just be hermeneutics - we may just be missing the intended meaning). If you study the Bible on a regular basis you will encounter these types of situations all the time.
Here's where my bias enters into the equation. The Bible included roughly 40 different writers and was written over a time span of some 1500 years. I have been blown away by how coherent, fluid, and error free it is (even our copies are staggeringly accurate) ... because I have formed this bias I do tend to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt when I encounter a possible error/contradiction. I'll take one of Lee's examples that is exceptionally hard for me to properly reconcile to demonstrate how I work.
Lee cites Mark 2:26 as a mistake, "he names the wrong high priest, confusing Abiathar with Ahimelech." This is especially fitting because I've been studying 1 Samuel in my devotional time lately. I agree with Lee ... there is some kind of mistake here. This is the point where Lee would write a blog post or Goodreads comment revealing the mistake to the world and be done with it. I, on the other hand, recognizing the Bible as extremely accurate and inerrant pause and first consider what type of error I'm confronted with. Is it a scribal error? Doesn't seem to be. There's no figurative language involved so we're not talking about a literal vs. metaphorical reading. This seems to leave us with two viable options. The first option is that it's just a strait up mistake from the source. Some writer somewhere screwed up. The second option is that we have an error of hermeneutics. We're missing something that Jesus is saying. I know from looking at the original Greek (I'm not a Greek expert though I'm trying to learn - I use software for this) that the passage could easily be translated as "... in the days of Abiathar the high priest." I also know from reading 1 Samuel that when David fed the consecrated bread to his men it brought death to Ahimelech (at the hands of Saul, Abiathar escaped such fate) so the whole scene displayed a time of transition from one high priest to another. So is Christ in error when he says "in the days of Abiathar the high priest"? Not necessarily. I think we're taking His words to be more exact then they are intended. Abiathar was there when David took the bread, was he not? So what we have is an error of hermeneutics. Christ doesn't seem to be referring to the exact high priest at the time the bread was taken, rather is he telling a story that Abiathar was intimately involved in. He could have said "in the days of Ahimelech" and also been correct ... but he chose "in the days of Abiathar" and is just as correct.
This resolution works for me even though it may not be ultimately satisfying and Lee would be correct to accuse me of a little conjecture in my reasoning ... but it is conjecture based on the fact I have found the vast majority of Scripture to error free and filled with truth. I must admit to some conjecture because Scripture offers no exact resolution. It works for me though because I agree with David - ultimately this passage is peripheral to the work of Christ. I don't need to spend a great deal of time pondering the passage because I am too busy trying to apply other passages to my life.
With that said it is hard for me to just sit by and watch as someone claims they they have found an error in the Bible without offering a refute. Albeit, some refutes are better than others.
As I said earlier - this is an apologetics forum. If Lee is going to incessantly point out the supposed errors he has found, someone should incessantly point out why he is wrong. The worst possible scenario would be for someone to read Lee's proposed error, assume he knows what he is talking about, and then reject Christ on the basis of such alleged error, "Why should I consider Christ at all? Why, he didn't even know who the high priest was when David ate the consecrated bread ... I know this because I read a Bert Ehrman book and found this really smart guy on Goodreads who corroborated his arguments."
If we are a forum of apologists, we should offer a defense of Scripture when challenged. If you guys want to bash me for offering such a defense, feel free. I'll side with Scripture every single time with no apologies whatsoever.
Clark
Lee wrote: "What exactly is my preexistent bias, Clark? That people who write history sometimes make mistakes?"My apologies Lee, perhaps you are bias free and beyond reproach. I on the other hand have no choice but to admit my own and to try and explain how it enters into my studies.
Clark
lol, Clark. Errors in the Bible are no reason to reject Christ. Are you now telling me that Jesus never made a mistake either? They are only reason to reject inerrancy.Here is the question I put to you: how did you form the idea that the "vast majority of Scripture is error free and filled with truth"? How many historical errors, scientific errors, contradictions, and simple mistakes would I need to list in order to get you to reconsider inerrancy? 100? I could do that, if necessary.
Let's play with numbers. Suppose this problem in Mark has a 99% chance of being explained away, and a 1% chance of being a true error ... the kind which refutes even Clark's definition of inerrancy. Now let's examine just the first 100 such problems. We are left with under a .4% chance (four chances in 1000) that the Bible is inerrant.
At this point, ANY reasonable person without a bias will conclude that errors exist. They will go in search of a reason for bias, and find none (there is no logical reason for this bias). They will therefore reconsider the 100 problems they find in a new light, and begin to ask WHY the problems exist. They will discover they are not problems at all; they are normal human recollections, human mistakes, ancient human understandings, human opinions, human motives. Suddenly, EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE makes sense again, and they can go on their way enlightened, without sacrificing their love for Jesus.
I have been down that path.
This discussion lead to my post today on my blog. Here is a case where the Bible itself admits it contains an error.http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2013/0...
Lee wrote: "lol, Clark. Errors in the Bible are no reason to reject Christ. Are you now telling me that Jesus never made a mistake either?"Um .. yes Lee I would argue that Christ was God ans as such perfect. The fact that you laugh at that proposition astounds me.
Clark
It shouldn't astound you, Clark.Maybe you are aware of the story in Mark where Jesus tried to heal people in his hometown and failed. Maybe you are aware of another attempt that took him two tries to heal a blind man. Maybe you are aware of a time Jesus criticized a gentile, calling her a dog, and when she spoke back gently he realized his mistake and learned from her.
The Jesus I admire is a real person, who actually lived and died in history. Not a fabrication, built up to mythical proportions by a bizarre belief system. That sort of being would not entice me to be a Christian.
So, we must agree to disagree.
David wrote: "I also still believe that tinting your scholarship with a belief system is intellectual dishonesty, though. The instance cited in Daniel is a perfect example; there is no way it "obviously is not a..."“Clark or Peter - Have there ever been times you read something you thought was a contradiction, researched it and found the attempted reconciliation's unsatisfying? If the answer is no, your bias is showing.”
First an apology for a lack of apologetics. With all of the posts and my lack of time, I have not had the time to read everyone’s response or answer in a timely fashion.
David since you addressed this to me (and Clark) I will take a stab at an answer.
Since the word “contradiction” is central to your question, let me begin by defining it: two statements are contradictory if the cannot both be true. So, for example it cannot rain and not rain. A contradiction, right? Perhaps not. It can rain now and not rain in 10 minutes. That’s non-contradictory by virtue of time. It can also rain feathers and not rain water. That’s non-contradictory with respect to the sense of the word “rain.”
So how does that relate to our discussion? When we analyze data from 2000 years ago spoken by people from a different culture, it’s almost impossible to establish a clear, unambiguous, contradiction. Being non-contradictory by virtue of “sense” is pretty well always a possibility, so I generally call them problems, difficulties, or inconsistencies. Otherwise I would be claiming these data have been proven analytically to be irreconcilable.
“Have I found the attempted reconciliations for these ‘inconsistencies’ (by definition contradictions could not be reconciled) unsatisfying?”
I find all of the reconciliations dissatisfying , but I find the explanation that all or some of the sources are in error much more dissatisfying than the attempted reconciliation. Why?
Let’s take the Belshazzar example.
1. The Greek, Babylonian, and Biblical histories are all data and as data they ought to be assumed to be true and stacked side by side for examination. As a scholar and a scientist, one has to work from a presumption that data is reliable and hypotheses and theories are suspect. To pick one or two data points as correct and throw out the Biblical data brings up the question, “why throw the Daniel data out?” In the back of my mind I would wonder if the data selection process was motivated by the anti-supernatural bias that I find to be very strong in academia. That would just a suspicion and not evidence. The evidence depends on the data.
2. If someone comes along with a hypothesis that reconciles the Greek, Babylonian, and Biblical data, that is much stronger and more useful because it explains more and leads to more study (combing the records for a mention of Belshazzar etc.).
As scholars we need to have a very high regard for data. If we distrust data, we should measure the data again (find better manuscripts of Daniel) rather than throw it out. If we can’t find a reconciling hypothesis, we keep all the data, document our best guess on a hypothesis that fits most of the data and point out we can’t explain a significant part of our data set.
So why are there scholars who would classify Belshazzar as an error? In their estimation they are convinced it’s an error. Why might they think that way?
[Note to answer this, I've stopped talking about the data and am now talking about the hypothetical motivation of the scholars (a genetic fallacy), but since often a similar analysis is used to explain the convictions of scholars who line up with traditional scholarship, I thought these points might have value.]
Here’s how I think it might work (I don’t have anyone in mind when I say this. I can’t possible know anyone else’s motivation except my own. Even with myself, I recognize that I don’t necessarily identify my biases):
1. Many academic scholars have a strong anti-supernatural bias that they don’t recognize or believe amply justified. They’re just convinced there is no room in our universe for miracles or supernatural events.
2. Thus they view the whole Biblical record as tainted, because from Genesis to Revelation, it records signs, wonders, and extraordinary events that are categorically excluded by the scholar’s worldview.
3. With this view of the tainted Bible, they expect to find errors all over the place, and when they find an inconsistency, they call it an error. Because they were expecting to find the error, they don’t bother with reconciliation hypotheses (after all the academic circle knows without a doubt it’s an error) and if someone else offers a reconciliation hypothesis, it’s dismissed as the feeble attempts of a fundamentalist bolstering his shaky and fragile faith.
4. The scholar forgets that the Biblical record is actually data just like the Babylonian and Greek data and without really thinking about the process, transfers the Biblical data to the category of “hypothesis.” Now it can be attacked using the “real” data (read the non-biblical data) and shown in effect to be a wrong hypothesis.
Thanks for the question David. I appreciated the comments I have read so far. From my point of view this has been a very worthwhile discussion. I've appreciated reading the other viewpoints and the ones I've read have forced me to think through my own position and Lee led me to do a bit of research into questions I hadn't looked at in detail before. Thanks!
Peter, you bring up a good point. I do have a sort of bias ... because I know in advance the Bible contains historical errors. I can read them for myself. I can see the legions of websites scrambling to "defend" the Bible when an obvious error is pointed out. Anybody who has been to school (or who carries a calculator), for example, knows the story of Noah and the Ark isn't true. Anybody who studies archaeology knows the numbers in the Bible, of about 2 million people traipsing through the desert, is an exaggeration. Anybody who reads the birth stories can see that they contradict each other. I can point out literally a hundred examples...we KNOW there are errors.Therefore: KNOWING FOR A FACT that the Bible contains "errors," why would I not accept the logical assumption that the named priest in Mark is a simple error?
Lee wrote: "Peter, you bring up a good point. I do have a sort of bias ... because I know in advance the Bible contains historical errors. I can read them for myself. I can see the legions of websites scrambli..."Lee, I should protest that I never accused you of bias (if that's what you meant by your first line). I have enough to worry about managing my own bias. I go into these discussions assuming you and the others are approaching these questions honestly with a desire to know the truth.
Having said that, we have ended up with very different conclusions. Although I don't claim there are no errors in the Bible, when I look at the cited "error" passages, the pattern consistently emerges that I find the case for Biblical veracity is much stronger than the initial pronouncement led me to believe.
In fairness though Lee, when you use the words "we" and "anybody" you make it sound as if everyone (including me) holds your point of view (which is not true). I presume "we" and "anybody" as opposed to "I" or "some of us" was hyperbole.
It's interesting to me how you and I could look at essentially the same data and come to quite different conclusions.
Thank you Lee, for the invigorating discussion.
Peter wrote: "Lee wrote: "Peter, you bring up a good point. I do have a sort of bias ... because I know in advance the Bible contains historical errors. I can read them for myself. I can see the legions of websi..."Peter,
I always appreciate your comments. You have a demeanor about yourself (at least from what I can gather from these discussions) that I would like to model myself.
Thanks for the example.
Clark
Yes, this is one place where I agree 100% with Clark. Bet he never thought he'd see that day! :)
If we are a forum of apologists, we should offer a defense of Scripture when challenged. If you guys want to bash me for offering such a defense, feel free. I'll side with Scripture every single time with no apologies whatsoever. Clark, I agree. I just think the "defense" could be explaining why the issue is not a big deal. In other words, I don't know, or care that much, about Ahimelech/Abiathar. It is a peripheral issue, what do you think about Jesus' central claims? That is just as valid, to me, as spending time showing it is not a contradiction.
Peter - for the record, I prefer "discrepancy" over "contradiction", for the reasons you said. Great posts.
As for Jesus making a mistake - you can believe Jesus is fully God and fully human, in line with the classic creeds, and still believe he made mistakes. He lay aside his divinity and in becoming human believed in what the humans of the day believed in. I use this example - Jesus did not secretly know quantum physics. He knew the science of his day. When he said the mustard seed is the smallest, he was not making a scientific point, so proving him wrong by showing a smaller seed is pointless. He may have gone bowling and NOT gotten a 300. He was human. But I guess this is probably a discussion for a separate thread.
@PeterI think Lee's statement in #36 is fine just the way it is. Anyone who doesn't have a clear bias towards a literal interpretation of scripture can come to the conclusion that Noah's ark can't possibly be a real, historical story. The evidence against the possibility of a real Noah's ark is so overwhelming, only someone with an obvious bias could still believe it's true. I don't know if you believe the story of Noah's ark is literally true, and if you do I'm sorry if this sounds offensive, but the story is so absurd anyone who's being honest with themselves and the facts can't possibly believe the story is literally true.
Fortunately, i don't think it's the job of the apologist to convince the non-Christian that Noah's story is literally true, but rather to convince them that the truth behind the story and the lessons learned from it are true. An acceptance of a literal Noah's ark isn't required for salvation. I would tell one of the students in my Bible study class the same thing. If you are struggling with the literal truth of a story, don't panic. Concentrate on the lesson conveyed. On a personal note, I do believe Noah and his story is a true one. In fact the majority of the Christians i personally know believe the same. Though it may seem absurd to most non-Christians. I also believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I have, however, met and read several Christians who approach them in a more figurative manner. And as I've stated, I am sure their place in the Kingdom is just as secure as mine. I have met some people who use such things as a test of salvation and I think that is unfortunate.
Clark
Perhaps this is because of the very negative impression I have of church and used to have of the Bible, but why would a story that is not factual be in the Bible if it makes God look bad? God pretty much killed all the people on earth like me stomping on an anthill in my backyard. Again, I try not to be negative but what is the lesson behind that? If you are blameless you may be saved? What about Job? He was blameless and got something else. If it's not a factual story then why tell it? To show God can be mean?
Once again Clark and I are in agreement. I'm circling this week on the calendar.To answer David, it really only makes God look bad if you interpret it literally, and I look at it just the opposite of you...why tell history when you can tell a story with meaning?
The Adam and Eve story is a better example of this than Noah, at least for me, because there is SO MUCH meaning we can take away from that story, if we recognize it as meaningful myth, not history.
What I'm saying is I don't understand the point of the story. It shows, in my opinion, that you can't please God and he is unfair. Unfair being you can have two people who act the same yet get different treatment. I still have not gotten to the point where I can watch someone with a good heart and strong beliefs suffer their entire life and think that's okay because we are nasty sinners that deserve to rot in hell forever. I'm sorry but lying a little bit and occasionally lusting does not warrant burning forever. If God wanted absolute obedience then he should have made slaves with no free will.
@Lee ... We agree in part. I stop short of suggesting a literal interpretation portrays God as mean. I think somethings in our limited understanding we often confuse attributes such as holiness and justice as meanness. But it seems we do agree, in part, anyway. @David I humbly suggest that the conclusions you are drawing are not the conclusions the authors of Scripture would hope you'd arrive at upon reading the Bible. For instance ...
You wrote, "Unfair being you can have two people who act the same yet get different treatment." - I don't think God's judgment is necessarily based on how we act. Certainly, if one accepts a relationship with Christ, it should impact the way he/she acts, but you can never simply "act good enough" to enter into the presence of a perfectly holy God. That's where Christ enters into the equation.
You also wrote, "I still have not gotten to the point where I can watch someone with a good heart and strong beliefs suffer their entire life and think that's okay because we are nasty sinners that deserve to rot in hell forever." - Suffering is a fact of life. I don't understand it completely, but I would disagree with any Christian who takes glee in another person's suffering. Nor do I think God takes glee in it. Do I think we deserve hell? If hell is seen as separation from a perfectly holy God, then yes ... I fall short of that perfect standard (along with everyone else I have ever met). Once again, this is where Christ enters the equation.
You wrote, "I'm sorry but lying a little bit and occasionally lusting does not warrant burning forever." - When measured against the perfect holiness of God, Scripture does disagrees with you here. I used to vehemently make the same argument you do until I realized it is up to God to set the standard, not me. I thought I was smart enough and accomplished enough to get into an Ivy league school when I graduated high school. They disagreed. Unfortunately for me it is completely up to them how they set the standard.
Finally, you wrote, "If God wanted absolute obedience then he should have made slaves with no free will." - As a believer, God gives me something to aspire to and provisions to deal with it when I fall short (which is inevitably the case). The Bible talks of slavery in terms of being slaves to sin and freedom in terms of being free to escape the bondage of sin. I firmly believe I am more free in Christ than I ever was before Him.
Each and every one of your objections are overcome by Christ. It is only a concern for those who fail to respond to Him.
Clark
You know, that's an interesting question. Gut feeling, please: will you see any of the people who died in the flood when you get to heaven?
Lee wrote: "You know, that's an interesting question. Gut feeling, please: will you see any of the people who died in the flood when you get to heaven?"That's a god question Lee (and one that I have never considered). I see Heaven as two stages. First, we can experience Heaven (His Kingdom) to some degree in the here and now. One of my favorite writers examines Christ's statement about Heaven being near in terms of proximity rather than time. I believe we experience Heaven now anytime we exert His will in this fallen world. I also believe in an eternal Heaven. So the question is "Will people who died in the flood be present in His eternal Kingdom?" Ready for my deep, theological answer to that question?
I don't know. I've never really considered it and ultimately I am content allowing God to decide who will be in Heaven. However, it would be an interesting question to study at some point ... and I'm sure others in the forum may be more prepared than I to give a definitive answer.
Clark
@Clark I know there are a lot of Christians who don't believe in a literal interpretation of these stories. I've even read "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism" by John Shelby Spong, who's a retired Episcopal Bishop. Honestly, that view makes more sense to me than saying they really happened.
So you believe angels from heaven had sex with human women and had Giants as their offspring? Seeing this, God decided to wipe out his creation and start over again through a global flood? Just out of curiosity, don't you find the idea of putting every animal in the world into one boat a little hard to believe?
Yes Guillermo. I do find it hard to believe. I actually find many aspects of the Bible that are "hard" to believe ... or at least I find they challenge my ability to believe. When I stumble upon such a passage I try to commit myself to studying it closer to discern what it is God would teach me through it. I find the passage you reference to begin your second paragraph one of the more difficult to understand and teach in all of the Bible ... which is probably why there are a variety of interpretations concerning it. Some people interpret "sons of God" as referring to angels while others think it refers to something different. I think the truth boils down however to the facts that God judges sin and yet still extends grace and mercy in the midst of it. God is just and God is love. It is very hard for me to understand, but I am very thankful He has extended me grace and love. Lord knows I needed it! I think that particular passage from Genesis reveals a great deal about God.
Concerning the Ark ... once again, yes - I find it hard to believe and wouldn't hold it against anyone if they found it hard to believe. Personally, however, I have determined that (considering the miracles God performs throughout Scriptures) preserving life in a boat probably wasn't that hard. So I just accept that one even though I can't explain how He did it.
Clark
In regards to some of David's questions, I'll second Clark in saying simply: beware of drawing conclusions to the story the Bible itself does not draw. For example, there is no hint in the Bible that the people who died went to hell for all eternity. The punishment (warranted in your opinion or not) was simply death. The question of hell/heaven is not relevant. It is only when you take a later view of hell and read it back into the story does such a question come up.Also, I think a strong argument can be made that it was not literally a worldwide flood. Remember - this is a story written by humans from their perspective. They did not know the size of the entire world. Imagine the TARDIS shows up (a time machine) and whisks a person in 4000 BC right into the middle of New Orleans during Hurrican Katrina. Such a person might assume the "whole earth" has flooded. In the same way, people back then would look around and assume it was the whole earth.
Also, historically, there are so many flood stories in the Ancient Near East that it seems likely some sort of flood really did happen. Are these common stories rooted in a lie or in a reality?
What I really wanted to say was about Clark's bias. I think his bias is quite rational. His view (which I would at least partially share) may be summarized:
1. God is trustworthy; more, God is the most trustworthy being there is.
2. God inspired scripture
3. Scripture illustrates God's trustworthiness very clearly in many places (specifically, Jesus)
4. There are other places in scripture that seem more hard to believe, but following 1-3, it makes sense to give God the benefit of the doubt.
If you buy into 1-3, as I think Clark does, then 4 follows.
My wife is the my best friend. She knows me better than anyone and I know her. We tell each other the truth, including stories from our day. If she were to tell me something very far-fetched I may have trouble believing it. But I would be much more likely to believe her, as a proven trustworthy person, than I would a stranger who has no credibility to me.
My question: Is an apologist supposed to defend against the claim of mistakes like this, or is this sort of thing to be expected in the Bible and overlooked?