The Bible Skeptic: Final Thoughts

Final Thoughts

Recall that the articles following this Introduction deal with some unreliable claims made in the Old and New testaments. Kenneth Kitchen’s book dealt with many corresponding points of agreement between the Old Testament and what we can know of ancient history via archaeological research. However, Kitchen failed to present any points of disagreement between such claims and known history. How can one claim reliability for something that can be shown to be unreliable?

Reliability means to be dependable. To be reliable means to be capable of being relied upon. If a person were in the process of buying a car, and wanted one that would be reliable in its usage to travel between point A and point B, this person would need to know if the car would be capable of performing as expected. The person would need not only the tires to be dependable, but other components as well. If the tires could be shown to be dependable, but the ignition faulty, of what use would the car be? If the tires and ignition could be shown to be reliable, but the doors frequently stuck closed not allowing entry, again of what use would the car be? If the tires, the ignition, and the doors were in good repair, but the driver’s seat continued to snap back into a reclining position at awkward and unpredictable moments, again the car could not be defined as a dependable mode of transportation. It would not be reliable.

For something to be reliable it needs to be shown to have a level of trustworthiness. Trust is the firm reliance upon the integrity, the ability, or character of a person or thing. If a person or thing is reliable only part of the time, it is not worthy of being thought of as dependable or reliable. How could a person trust a car that only worked part of the time? How could a person rely upon an alarm clock that rang at unpredictable moments? How could a person feel confident in depending upon a spouse that was found to be cheating from time to time?

To have a firm reliance or trust in another person or thing, one would have to feel there is little or no chance of change in that person or thing. The object of this trust would need to be fixed and definite.

When Kenneth Kitchen titled his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, I took his choice of words seriously. When Kitchen wrote of the reliability of the Old Testament I understood his use of the term reliable to be that of a firm dependability and trustworthiness in the historical claims of the Old Testament. When he wrote of the Old Testament, I understood him to mean the Old Testament as a whole since, as most believers will affirm, if part of the scriptures can be shown to be false --unreliable—then what parts of scripture can we trust? And this seriousness of intent extends to the apologists who write copious defenses of the Christian and Jewish scriptures as being inerrant and inspired of God. If the whole of scripture comes to us from a divine, perfect source, how could it be, in any part, unreliable?

We’ve already looked at demonstrable evidence that a large number of American Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the historical claims made in the Bible. I now want to let a few of them speak for this belief.

Representative of a large number of Christian churches and their members, Dr. Craig Johnson’s Bethel Christian Fellowship in Agoura Hills, California presents as part of their Statement of Faith that they believe "the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God." (emphasis mine) It really is that simple for the vast majority of biblical inerrantists.

Josh McDowell, author of the popular series of Evidence That Demands a Verdict books, writes a more thoughtful explanation regarding biblical inerrancy for visitors to his website:

The process of inspiration extended to every word ("all Scripture"), refuting the idea of myth and error. Since God is behind the writings, and since He is perfect, the result must b3e [sic] infallible. If it were not infallible, we could be left with God -inspired error. It is important to understtand [sic] this concept, for the entire Christian faith is based upon the premise that "God is there and He is not silent," as the late theologian Francis Schaeffer so often said…

Inspiration means that "God the Holy Spirit worked in a unique supernatural way so that the written words of the Scripture writers were also the words of God."

The human authors of Scripture wrote spontaneously using their own minds and experiences, yet their words were not merely the words of men but actually the words of God. God's control was always with them in their writings with the result being the Bible—the Word of God in the words of men.

Quoting lawyer/theologian John Warwick Montgomery, McDowell argues [1] that fallible men could produce with God’s guidance, an infallible book:

…the production over centuries of sixty-six inerrant and mutually consistent books by different authors is a tall order — and we cheerfully appeal to God’s Spirit to achieve it — but the point remains that there is nothing metaphysically inhuman or against human nature in such a possibility. If there were, have we considered the implications for Christology? The incarnate Christ, as a real man, would also have to err; and we have already seen that error in His teachings would totally negate the revelational value of the incarnation, leaving man as much in the dark as to the meaning of life and salvation as if no incarnation had occurred at all" (God’s Inerrant Word, p. 33).

Appealing to the Bible itself, McDowell drives his point home:

God used fallible men to receive and record His infallible Word so that it would reach us, correct and without error. Sounds difficult? With our God, it’s not. As He said (Jeremiah 32:27, NASB), "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?"

Another author, popular for his defense of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, is apologist Gleason Archer. In his book, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Archer writes regarding the nature of the Bible,

If the statements it [the Bible] contains concerning matters of history and science can be proven by extrabiblical records, by ancient documents uncovered through archaeological digs, or by the established facts of modern science to be contrary to the truth, then there is grave doubt as to it trustworthiness in matters of religion. In other words, if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind. (pp.23-24)

Archer takes particular exception to those who would compromise with the integrity of the inspired text. He writes,

Those who allow for inaccuracies or self-contradictions in the original manuscripts of the Bible usually take refuge in the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, which they receive through some sort of existential encounter with God, an encounter that takes place in the context of Bible study –fallible though that Bible may be! They trust that the Holy Spirit leads them so that they can get at the Living Word of God and enjoy all the solid benefits of redemption and fellowship with God that old-fashioned Evangelicals suppose these freethinkers have lost through their discarding biblical inerrancy. (ibid)

Archer even notes that the Old Testament makes no "distinction between abstract theological doctrine and the miraculous events that marked the history of redemption." In other words, Archer is claiming that the historical claims in the Bible are just that: historical. He asserts that this belief pervades the entire writings of the biblical text, saying "that the later Old Testament authors were as sure of the Red Sea crossing and the other miracles as the apostles were sure of Christ’s atoning death on Calvary." And Archer, of course, is sure of both!

However, Archer seems to be in the camp of apologists who believe only the "original" documents were inspired. Unlike Josh McDowell, Archer thinks it is virtually impossible for God to maintain absolute stewardship over the scribal copying of the holy text. However, Archer does minimize errors that likely entered the scriptures over the centuries. He notes,

These inadvertencies occur from time to time simply because of the imperfect quality of attention of any human scribe. Nothing less than divine intervention could guarantee a completely errorless copy or set aside the human propensity to occasional slips in punctuation or spelling. But the important fact remains that accurate communication is possible despite technical mistakes in copying. (p. 29)

And yet, Archer feels that the copies we have today are remarkably close to the original versions, due to God’s sovereignty over the message of the text.

Is there any objective proof from the surviving manuscripts of Scripture that these sixty-six books have been transmitted to us with such a high degree of accuracy as to assure us that the information contained in the originals has been perfectly preserved? The answer is an unqualified yes.

…it has long been recognized by the foremost specialists in textual criticism that…there in no case [is] a single, significant alteration in doctrine or message. This can only be explained as the result of a special measure of control exercised by the God who inspired the original manuscripts of Scripture…(pp. 29-30)

While a skeptic of a deity’s existence may disagree with Archer’s "only explanation" for the preservation of the Bible’s doctrine and message, his belief is nevertheless made clear. For Gleason Archer there is no significant deviation in the Bible from what is known in history and science and from claims made in the texts even as we have them today. He even counts believers in the same camp as Jesus Christ who also, he claims, believed in the infallibility and inerrancy of the holy scriptures. Echoing Kenneth Kitchen’s choice of book titles, Archer tells his readers,

...that Christ regarded the recorded statements and affirmations of the Old Testament as completely accurate and trustworthy, whether they dealt with theology, history, or science. This is what is really at stake, and it is this level of truthfulness that is involved rather than technical infallibility in the art of scribal transmission. (pp. 27-28)

So, while Archer would allow the occasional misspelling or punctuation errors (which can be uncovered and corrected by modern textual critics), the reliability of the Old Testament with regards to history and science is well-founded in the divine inspiration of the text. Archer disagrees strongly with those other Christian believers who would compromise the integrity of the text and make excuses for how certain claims in the Old Testament do not reflect what is known of history or of science.

Archer isn't the only advocate of the "inerrancy only in the 'originals'". Another body of Christians, the American Evangelistic Association promote the same idea, even more vaguely, however. This organization is not affiliated with any denomination and is not a congregation itself. It exists to network other ministries into a common pool and to ordain those believers (formally educated in theology or not) who meet their criteria (plus a monthly fee to remain in the association) and want the title of being "ordained." Regarding their stance on the Bible's authority, their very first "Statement of Faith" reads:

The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible guide in faith and practice.

What one has to wonder, however, is if the original autographs of the Bible are the "only infallible guide in faith and practice", and if no one alive today has ever seen or holds a copy of these "original" documents, then these Christians cannot be said to be following any infallible guide. None exists. The only copies of the Bible are copies from copies from copies from copies...Since these are not "originals" are we to assume that the AEA does not support any infallible guide for faith or the Christian practice? And how do they know what the "originals" looked like in order to so emphatically declare them "infalliable"?

Arguably the most influential and popular creationist websites on the internet is that promoted by apologist Ken Ham. AiG (Answers in Genesis) is a treasure of articles supporting a literal reading of the Bible, defending it from "compromising its…integrity in the face of the ever-increasing attacks from those hostile to Christianity." The purpose of Ken Ham’s AiG is to equip "the church to answer the skeptics, and encouraging the body of Christ to trust in the authority of God's Word." Regarding the authority and integrity of "God’s Word," Ham has written a response to a question regarding the literal reading of scripture. In the article, Our Rallying Cry, Ham writes,

Recently, a person wrote me detailed letters pleading with me not to be so adamant about the six literal days of creation and a young earth. He said that I should admit that as long as we agree on the truth of the gospel, that’s really all that’s ultimately important.

Disturbed by this letter writer’s willingness to compromise on the integrity and literal interpretation of scripture, Ham offered an explanation as to why such compromise is unacceptable to Christians who believe in the ultimate divine inspiration of the Bible:

…the message of salvation comes from hearing the Bible (‘faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God’ –Romans 10:17). But how does our culture view the Bible today? It sees many in the church compromising Scripture with millions of years, the big bang, etc. The result: the authority of the Bible in the culture has been undermined.

Ken Ham is alarmed by this trend and feels his Aig Ministry needs to stand in the gap of this increasing trend to compromise the Bible. He claims to be dedicated to "standing on the Scriptures" as Martin Luther proclaimed at the start of the Reformation. He feels AiG will lead a new reformation, getting "back to the authority of the Word of God, because most of the church has given it up…beginning in Genesis." There is little question that Ham believes the Bible to be God’s Word and that it should be taken literally in its historical and scientific claims. And his ministry is dedicated to getting others to agree with him.

Even less well-known believers affirm the value of an infallible, inerrant biblical text, disallowing such compromises with the scriptures as were detailed earlier. Moses Lemuel Raj, in his article "Are There Any Copyists’ Errors in the Holy Bible?", states unabashedly,

…some of them [Christians] say that only the "original autographs" are inspired and the copies of the Scripture got corrupted in the course of time due to accumulation of copyists’ errors, and therefore the Scriptures we have today, whether in original tongues or translations, are not completely error free (Please see the notes for Jer 52:12,22,25,31 in the NIV Study Bible). Neither do they agree the fact that, a faithful translation of Scriptures by able and godly men from an error free copy of scriptures in the original tongue, preserved divinely, is equally inspired Word. But still they talk about the "general accuracy" of the Scriptures, of course with its copyists’ errors included which, they say, do not matter much, and must be ignored. But that would essentially mean that the Word which says "every word of God is pure" is irrelevant today. Would not God who gave His holy Word preserve it from corruption?

Like Archer above, Raj allows Jesus to speak for this belief in absolute inerrancy:

Our Lord Jesus Christ said : "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mt 5:18). "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them (i.e., words), O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Ps 12:6,7). Though there may be certain copies of scriptures which are corrupted, God has definitely preserved His Word in some other copies and made them available for God’s people, and God fearing translators. He has preserved His Word "from this generation" of textual critics like Westcott and Hort (who brought out a Greek NT in 1881 from which the RV, RSV, NIV etc. were translated), who believe more in their methods of "scientific textual criticism" than the Word of God.

Wayne Jackson, from the Christian Courier website argues that plenary, verbal inspiration of necessity leads to the belief that each word of the Bible was divinely inspired. He writes,

Verbal inspiration has to do with the actual formation and use of the words themselves. It involves the employment within sentences of nouns, verbs, prepositions, articles, etc. This "verbal" concept of inspiration contends that the Spirit of God guided the holy writers so that the very grammatical modes they employed were divinely orchestrated in order to convey subtle meanings of truth. While biblical scholars acknowledge that God used the individual talents and personalities of the holy writers, nonetheless it must be recognized that divine supervision was present so that the exact messages that Heaven intended were given.

Jackson’s article shows the logical consequence of such direct verbal inspiration and then rallies various biblical proofs to strengthen his case. He appeals not only to Jesus, but also to the apostle Paul as believers in the verbal inspiration of the holy texts. Regarding Paul, Jackson notes in part,

In one of his Corinthian letters, the apostle contends that just as one cannot know the content of another person’s mind, unless that person reveals such, even so, no one can know the "things of God" except as those things were conveyed by the Spirit of God (as made known through inspired communicators of the first century, e.g., the apostles). Paul says, "...which things (i.e., the things of God) also we [inspired men] speak." Then he adds, "...not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Spirit teaches..." (1 Cor. 2:13). Beyond dispute is the fact that the apostle here declares that the first-century gospel was conveyed in Spirit-given words. No clearer affirmation of verbal inspiration could have been framed.

Another internet source, from Touchet Baptist Church in Touchet, Washington, makes a strong claim that every instance of inspired scripture referred to in the Bible is in reference to a copy of the texts and not to the originals alone. They argue for the "infallible preservation" of the copies of Yahweh’s holy texts. "Without infallible preservation" they note, "we are forced to conclude that God's breath evaporated with the deterioration of His originals." It is noted, quite remarkably,

The Bible contains 53 instances in which the words scripture(s)s are used. In every single instance, the word scripture(s) refers to a copy and not to the original autographs. Not even the critics claim that Timothy (II Timothy 3:15), Paul (Romans 15:4), Apollo (Acts 18:24-28), the Bereans (Acts 17:10), or even Christ (Luke 4:16-21) had the original autographs. Yet, the copies that each of these men read are referred to as "scripture." Not even one of these individuals ever claimed the need to correct his respective copy.(emphasis original)

A final sample comes from a now off-line webpage [2] once offered by Madison Baptist Church in Madison, AL. With great force, these believers in the inerrancy of the Bible argue that every word of Scripture, from the original autographs to the King James is inspired and without error. They wrote:

With all the versions in print today, how can we tell which one is the true Bible ?

For many years, I subscribed to this doctrinal statement, "I believe in the divine, verbal, plenary, and inerrant inspiration of the original Scriptures." Now, that is a true statement; but I later came to see that this comes up short. The first problem is that NoOne HAS the originals , and no one ever will !! There is a great danger in believing only in the inspiration of the "originals" -- it gives license to anyone who wishes to "correct" the Bible when it suits their purpose. For example, have you heard statements like this: "That's what the Bible says , but , in the original Greek it really means . . ."

"A better translation of this word would be . . ."

"This verse is not found in the most ancient manuscripts."

I am ashamed to admit that I have made the second statement myself, a number of times-- before I learned better ! Unfortunately, these statements are still being made from the pulpits and in the writings of conservatives--including fundamental Baptists ! In response to these statements, we need to face some very pointed and eye-opening questions:

1. Is the Bible intended for every man -- or just for the scholars? Should the non -scholars have to rely on the scholars for true interpretation of God's Word?

2. Do we need to know Hebrew and Greek to fully understand the Bible? If so, why are they such difficult languages to master? Is God trying to make the Bible difficult for the vast group of English-speaking people in the world today?

3. If some verses in our English Bible are questionable in their translation, can we really be sure that any of them are totally accurate? If we criticize or correct just one verse , what does this say to a baby Christian?

So -- we can finally phrase Question 2 like this: Is the King James Bible I read every morning a copy of the very Word of God ? If it isn't, I'd better get one quick!! Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. No italics here -- in fact there are none in this verse. (And we'll talk about the significance of italics a little later.) So--in the language Jesus spoke, He said we must live by every WORD --not every book--not every chapter or paragraph -- not even by every thought; but by EVERY Word!! Obviously, to carry out this mandate I must have an "every word" Bible. And this brings us to the Doctrine of Preservation . Without this doctrine, coupled with the Truth of Inspiration, we could never be 100% sure we actually have God's Word!

1. THE DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION

The Divine preservation of the Scriptures is taught by the Scriptures (just as is the doctrine of Divine inspiration) and it is also corroborated by internal and external proofs . Here are some of the Scriptures which teach this Truth:

A. Psalm 12:6,7 -- Please notice the grammar here: "words" is the antecedent of "them." Simple. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a seminary professor to understand this statement. By inspiration of the Spirit, the psalmist plainly states that God will preserve His words from the time of the writer for ever! Here we have --The substance of preservation - " words "

--The Agent of preservation - " Thou " (God)

--The period of preservation - " for ever "

B. Psalm 119:89, 152, 160 -- The "Word of God" chapter teaches that the Bible is "for ever" settled and will endure for ever!

C. Psalm 111: 7-8

D. Isaiah 40:8

E. Isaiah 59:21 -- This teaches both Inspiration - ". . .My words which I have put in thy mouth . . ." and Preservation - " . . .from henceforth and for ever."

F. Jeremiah 36:1-4, 22-24, 27-32 , which we studied last Sunday, is a record of both Inspiration and Preservation taking place!

G. Matthew 24:35 -- This verse applies the doctrine of Preservation to the New Test. Scriptures as well. Even the Great Commission (Mat 28:19-20) requires preservation of the Word of God. In order for the Church to teach Believers "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" until the end, obviously, the "all things" must be preserved until the end of the world!! Amen!

H. Luke 16:17; 21:33

I. 2 Tim 3:15 "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Here are some remarkable truths about preservation , given just before one of the key verses teaching inspiration (v 16)!

1. Timothy had access to the Scriptures (not some "reliable facsimile.")

2.. But - he did not have the "original autographs!" In his day, the O.T. Scriptures were from 450 to 1,500 years old, and were copies of copies of copies, etc.

3. The copies Timothy had access to are called "holy scriptures" and are referred to as "inspired" in the next verse (16). These verses show the faulty reasoning of any reference to the "inspired originals." The original autographs were certainly inspired--but so must the preserved copies be. If God did not truly preserve all of His Word, then Believers have been without a trustworthy Bible since 100 A.D.! The "originals" no longer exist .

J. 1 Peter 1:23, 25 - Notice that the Word of God:

1. Is incorruptible - its continued purity is promised. Therefore, if God's Word is true (and it IS) we must be able to find a pure Bible intact today!

2. It lives for ever - the promise of continued effectiveness. (See also Heb 4:12.)

3. It abides for ever ; it endures for ever.

II. THE LOGIC OF PRESERVATION

The Doctrine of Preservation just makes good sense. Does it seem reasonable that God would take such miraculous care in giving us His very words , then allow them to be lost or distorted over time? If God let none of Samuel's words fall to the ground (1 Sam 3:19) I strongly suspect that He will let none of His be lost or permanently blotted out! (Eccl 3:14 further attests to this principle.)

III. THE EXTENT OF PRESERVATION

From the Scriptures we have just studied it is clear that Preservation extends to all the Scriptures, just as Inspiration does.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Here again, no italics . So--in the language Jesus spoke, He said that not one jot or one tittle in the written Word of God would pass away until all was fulfilled. 2503. <i>iota</i> , ee-o'-tah; of Heb. or. [the tenth letter of the Heb. alphabet]; "iota", the name of the ninth letter of the Gr. alphabet, put (fig.) for a very small part of anything:-- jot .

2762. keraia , ker-ah'-yah; fem. of a presumed der. of the base of G2768; something horn-like, i.e. (spec.) the apex of a Heb. letter (fig. the least particle):-- tittle .

Now--did Jesus mean what He said??

Even if a person does not approach the Bible with the same strict adherence to the "Doctrine of Preservation" given above, and acknowledges that there are scribal alterations to the text, who can argue that these scribal changes were not equally inspired? James B. Jordan, in his article "Canonical Investigation (Part 1)" published in the November 1999 edition of the newsletter Biblical Horizons [3], points out such "minor" scribal adjustments to the "original" texts and persuades his Christian readers to believe that the "finished product," the Bible we have from Genesis to Revelation [4] is no less "inspired, inerrant and authoritative by virtue of the fact that such changes had been made and can be uncovered. He writes,

We also find minor adjustments in what was obviously an original text. A number of these are found in Genesis. A good example is Genesis 14:2 & 8, which include this phrase "the king of Bela (that is, Zoar)." Now, the original text doubtless read only "the king of Bela." That statement was perfectly true, thus inerrant and authoritative. God moved a later writer (Moses? Samuel? Ezra?) to insert the phrase "that is, Zoar," so that we would be able to make some significant correlations with other passages in the Bible. This addition does not change either the inerrancy or the authority of the text, but it does mean that what we have as Genesis 14 today is not the same as the original autograph.

Again, Saul's son Ish-baal (Man of the Husband), as he is still called in 1 Chronicles 8:33, is called Ish-bosheth (Man of Shame) in 2 Samuel 2:8. Did the original autograph of Samuel call him Ish-bosheth, or was his name changed under divine inspiration at a later time? Surely the latter. The change seems to reflect the later aversion to calling Yahweh "Baal" because of the use of "Baal" by the heathens; and possibly God's later command, in Hosea 2:16, that the people were no longer to call Yahweh by that name.

Christians should believe that the original autographs of the books of the Bible were inspired, inerrant, and authoritative, because those books were what God gave to His people at that time. But what Christians must believe is that the total finished product, Genesis to Revelation, including all the adjustments God made in the text along the way, is inspired, inerrant, and authoritative. When did this process of adjusting the text stop? We can be sure that it stopped when the last book of the Bible had been written. By that time, all the needed adjustments had been made, and the Book of God was finished. This happened by ad 70. As regards the earlier part of the Bible, written in Hebrew, many believe that Ezra put most of it into its final form -- but that is only a guess, since the Bible does not say.

I will allow the various Christian sects and splinters within denominations to argue amongst themselves whether or not the Bible is inerrant only in its "original" manuscripts or if divine preservation kept the holy words pure at least until the King James translation. I will let the variety of Christian apologists nip at one another’s heels while they argue over infallibility extending beyond the first "God-breathed" copies of the sacred texts. As I see it, if an omniscient and omnipotent being can inspire and assure the absolute accuracy of the "original" copies of this supernaturally composed text, there is no logical reason why this deity would not have equal inspiration over the copies of subsequent manuscripts and not have assured its supernatural preservation and faithfulness to the originals. It is this presumption that carries throughout the various other articles on my site.

If you intend to write me with an explanation for a biblical problem I have noted and will be arguing for a rewriting of the text (e.g. attributing a problem to a scribal error), please do not bother. Reread my Introduction and carefully note that my essays assume an inerrant text not only in the "God-breathed" originals, but also faithfully and divinely maintained throughout the centuries. I have no need to read inauthoritative conjecture about how the text should read in order to maintain modern coherency and to placate the sensitivities of the modern reader.[5]

So, as you read apologist's explanations for the many contradictions, discrepancies, inconsistencies and errors in the Bible from magazine articles, books and internet sites and blogs, ask yourself one question: Do these attempts solve the biblical error or just provide one possible explanation for the problem? If they do the former, by all means bring them to my attention. I would love to see these results. If they do the latter, keep looking. For as long as there is only a possible solution to a biblical error, the equally probable chance that a real biblical problem remains. A solution may have comforted and solved the problem for believers, but it has not objectively removed the error from the biblical texts.

NOTES

1. This, and the following McDowell quotes, come from an online Question and Answer page. Return to text

2. While no longer at it's original web address, the article can be found archived. Return to text

3. The article was once available free online, but must now be purchased here. An archived copy can be found here. Return to text

4. The Bible that most American Christians (Protestant) are familiar with (the "Genesis to Revelation" version just mentioned) did not come into existence until after Martin Luther’s Reformation in the sixteenth century CE. Did God, therefore, maintain stewardship over copies of his "original" text until this time?

The books in the modern Bible arrived at their state via a processes called canonization. The term canon refers to a compilation or list of officially approved books for use by a given body of believers in those texts. The Hebrew Bible (the Christian "Old Testament") is generally believed to have been "canonized" (i.e. recognized formally by officials of the Jewish faith) in c. 90 CE by the Council (or Academy) of Jamnia. The process of compiling books that would be included in the officially recognized Hebrew canon began centuries earlier, however. Canonization is a historical process, with various religious "officials" claiming authenticity for one book over another. However, generally, by c. 400 BCE, Jews regarded the first five books of the current Hebrew texts (Genesis through Deuteronomy; the Pentateuch, or "First Five Books of Moses") as authoritative. By the mid-second century BCE, the Former and Latter Prophets, as well as the Writings of the scriptures had found favor with the religious elite. It was following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (c. 70 CE) that the Jewish community sought to assign a fixed canon to their scriptures. This desire is what prompted the Council at Jamnia. (See Stephen Harris Understanding the Bible, p.14)

The familiar 27 Christian "New Testament" books were first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 CE. His list (or "canon") gained wider and wider acceptance until it was officially recognized by the "Orthodox" Church (i.e. Catholic) at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Inclusion of some of the books, however, continued to be debated even until the time of Martin Luther. It was in the sixteenth century, during the Reformation, that the so-called "deuterocanonical" (literally, "secondary to the canon") books of the Catholic Old Testament (Tobit [Tobias], Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [Ecclesiasticus], and Letter of Baruch) were dropped by Protestant Christians, causing the new Protestant version to mirror that of the canonized Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, James Jordan’s argument that divine inspiration kept pure the words of scripture "from Genesis to Revelation" really depends upon which Christian version of the Bible one is viewing. If Jordan is referring to the Catholic Bible, we can assume that God kept his words from human alterations at least until 367 CE. If Jordan is referring to the Protestant Bible, God was kept busy maintaining the integrity of his texts until the sixteenth century CE. Return to text

5. While my essays assume an inerrant text, that does not mean readers will not find alternative explanations for biblical problems answered in some of my articles. I will, occasionally, deal with the more popular or educated examples of apologetic attempts to reconcile the problems in the biblical text. However, I do not have time, nor do I wish to devote time, to answering all such conjecture. If I have found an explanation worthy of consideration, rest assured I have included it in my articles. If you don’t find your particular explanation here, it is likely I find it less than convincing. I have "been around the block" sufficiently enough to have heard a vast array of apologetic attempts to salvage the Bible in the name of inerrancy. I have found most attempts less than worthy of note. Return to text

SOURCES

Archer, Gleason L. (1982) New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Zondervan