AlbChristian.com - Albanian Christian Pages

Home Page

About contradictions and allegations of error in the Bible – how to deal with them!

The allegations of error in the Bible are usually based on a failure to recognize basic principles of interpreting ancient literature. The following principles can help one discern whether there is a true error or a contradiction in the literature - in this case, the Bible.

Principle # 1: The Unexplained Is Not Necessarily Unexplainable. No informed person would claim to be able to fully explain all Bible difficulties. However, it is a mistake for the critic to assume, therefore, that what has not yet been explained never will be explained. When a scientist comes upon an anomaly in nature, he does not give up further scientific exploration. Rather, he uses the unexplained as a motivation to find an explanation.
Scientists, for example, once had no natural explanation of meteors, eclipses, tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Until recently, scientist did not know how the bumblebee could fly. But no scientist throws in the towel and cries “contradiction!” All of these mysteries have yielded their secrets to the relentless patience of science.

Likewise, the Christian scholar approaches the Bible with the same presumptions that what is thus far unexplained is not therefore unexplainable. He or she does not assume that discrepancies are contradiction. And when he encounters something for which he has no explanation, he simply continues to do research, believing that one will eventually be found. In fact, if he assumed the opposite he would stop studying. Why pursue an answer when one assumes there is none?

Like his scientific counterpart, the Bible student has been rewarded for his faith and research. Many difficulties for which scholars once had no answer have yielded to the relentless pursuit of answers through history, archeology, linguistics, and other disciplines. For example, critics once proposed that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible because there was no writing in Moses’ day. Now we know that writing existed a couple of thousand years or more before Moses. Likewise, critics once believed that the Bible was wrong in speaking of the Hittite people, since they were totally unknown to historians. Now historians know of their existence by way of a Hittite library found in Turkey. This gives us confidence to believe that biblical difficulties not yet explained do have an explanation, and we need not assume that there is a mistake in the Bible.


Principle # 2: Fallible Interpretations Do Not Mean Fallible Revelation. Human beings are finite, and finite beings make mistakes. That is why there are erasers on pencils and “delete” keys on computers. As long as imperfect human beings exist, there will be misinterpretations of God’s Word and false views about His world. One should not assume that a currently dominant view in science is the final word on the topic. Prevailing views of science in the past are considered errors by scientists in the present. So, contradictions between popular opinions in science and widely accepted interpretations of the Bible can be expected. But these conflicts fall short of proving there are real contradictions between God’s world and God’s Word.


Principle # 3: Understand the Context of the Passage. Perhaps the most common mistake of critics is to take a text out of its proper context. As the adage goes, “A text out of context is a pretext.” One can prove anything from the Bible by this mistaken procedure. The Bible says, “there is no God” (Ps. 14:1). Of course, the context is that “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 14:1). One may claim that Jesus admonished us to “resist not evil” (Matt. 5:39 KJV), but the anti-retaliatory context in which He cast this statement must not be ignored. Likewise, many fail to understand the context of Jesus’ statement “Give to him who asks you.” Does this mean that one should give a gun to a small child who asks, on nuclear weapons to Saddam Hussein because he asks? Failure to note the meaning in light of its context is perhaps the chief error of those who find fault with the Bible.


Principle # 4: Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones. Some passages of Scripture are hard to understand. Sometimes one Scripture teaching appears to contradict another passage of Scripture. For example, James appears t say that salvation is by works (James 2:4-26), whereas Paul taught clearly that salvation is by grace (Rom. 4:5; Titus 3:5-7; Eph. 2:8-9). In this case, James should not be construed so as to contradict Paul. Paul is speaking about justification before God (which is by faith alone), whereas James is referring to justification before men (who cannot see our faith, but only our works).

Another example is Philippians 2:12 where Paul writes, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” On the surface this appears to be saying that salvation is by works. However, this is flatly contradicted by a host of Scriptures that clearly affirm that we are “saved through faith, and that not of yourself; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph.2: 8-9) And, “to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). When this difficult statement about “working out or salvation” in the light of these clear passages, we can see that, whatever it does mean, it does not mean that we are saved by our works. In fact, what it means is found in the very next verse. We are to work our salvation out because God’s grace has worked it in our hearts. In Paul’s words, “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).


Principle # 5: Don’t Base Teaching on Obscure Passages. Some Bible passages are difficult because their meanings are obscure. This is usually because a key word in the text is used only once (or rarely), and so it is difficult to know what the author is saying, unless it can be inferred from the context. For example one of the best know passages in the Bible contains a word that appears nowhere else in all existing Greek literature up to the time the New Testament was written. This word appears in what is popularly know as the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:11). It is usually translated “daily” – epiousion. Experts in Greek still have not come to any agreement either on its origin or on its precise meaning. Different commentators try to establish links with Greek words that are well known, and many suggestions have been proposed as to the resulting meaning. Among these suggestions are:

Give us this day our continuous bread.

Give us this day our supersubstantial (or supernatural, form heaven bread.

Give us this day bread for our sustenance.

Give us this day our daily (what we need for today) bread.

Each proposal has its defenders, each makes sense in the context, and each is based on the limited information available. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to depart from what has become the generally accepted translation. But this example serves to illustrate our point. Some passages of the Bible are difficult to understand because the meaning of some key word appears only once, or very rarely.

At other times, the words may be clear but the meaning is not evident because we are not sure to what they refer. In 1 Corinthians 15:29 Paul speaks of those who were “baptized for the dead.” Is he referring to the baptizing of live representatives to ensure salvation for dead believers who were not baptized (as Mormons claim)? Or is he referring to others being baptized into the church to fill the ranks of those who have passed on? Or is he referring to a believer being baptized “for” (i.e., “with a view to”) his own death and burial with Christ? Or is he referring to something else?

When we are not sure:
1. We should not build a doctrine on an obscure passage. The rule of thumb in Bible interpretation is “the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.” This is called the perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture. If something is important, it will be clearly taught in Scripture, and probably in more than one place.

2. When a given passage is not clear, never conclude that it means something that opposes another plain teaching of  Scripture.

Principle # 6: The Bible is a Human Book with Human Characteristics. The Bible claims that God used human personalities to receive and communicate eternal truths. Therefore, expressions of speech (such as when Jesus used exaggeration) should not always be taken literally, then pitted against another portion of Scripture.


Principle # 7: Just Because a Report is Incomplete Does Not Mean It Is False. For example, Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39 speak of only one demoniac, while Matthew 8:28-34 speaks of two. Mark and Luke, likely using the same firsthand report of the incident, are giving a partial report that focuses on the more prominent of the two demoniacs in the event. The accounts are not contradictory. They are actually complimentary, supplying more information when both are taken together.


Principle # 8: New Testament Citations of the Old Testament Need Not Always Be Exact. Just as in our day there is more than one translation of the Bible, early Christians often cited the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), which gave slightly different wording to the same text.


Principle # 9: The Bible Does Not Necessarily Approve of All Its Records. It is a mistake to assume that everything contained in the Bible is commended by the Bible. The Bible records lies – Satan’s (Gen. 3:4; cf. John 8:44) and Hahab’s (Josh. 2:4), for example. It does not necessarily condone those lies; it simply records accurately and truthfully even the lies and errors of sinful beings. The truth of Scripture is found in what the Bible reveals, not in everything it records. Unless this distinction is maintained, one might incorrectly conclude that the Bible teaches immorality when it narrates David’s sin (2 Sam. 11:4), that it promotes polygamy when it records Solomon’s many wives (1 Kin. 11:3), or that it affirms atheism when it quotes the fool as saying “there is no God” (Ps. 14:1).


Principle # 10: The Bible Uses Non-technical, Everyday Language. Just because a term in the Bible is non-scientific does not necessarily mean that the term is inaccurate. Scientific truths such as the revolving of the earth may be described in language idioms of the time. (e.g., the sun running through its circuit).


Principle # 11: The Bible May Use Round Numbers As Well As Exact Numbers. Round numbers are often used in ancient as well as modern literature. The Bible often contains this same linguistic convention.


Principle # 12: Note When the Bible Uses Different Literary Devices. Usually, the context will dictate whether a term should be taken literally or figuratively.


Principle # 13: An Error in a Copy does not equate to an error in the original. When theologians talk about the inerrancy of the Scriptures, they are referring to the Scriptures as originally written – the autographs – as opposed to a copy or a copy of a copy.


Principle # 14: General statements don’t necessarily mean universal promises. Critics often jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit of no exceptions. They seize upon verses that offer general truths, and then point with glee to obvious exceptions. In so doing they forget that such statements are only intended to be generalizations.

The book of Proverbs is a good example. Proverbial sayings by their very nature offer only general guidance, not universal assurance. They are rules for life, but rules that admit of exceptions. Proverbs 16:7 is a case in point. It affirms that “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” This statement obviously was intended to be a universal truth. Paul was pleasing to the Lord, but his enemies stoned him (Acts 14:19). Jesus pleased the Lord, and His enemies crucified Him! 

Nonetheless, it is generally true that one who acts in a way pleasing to God will often attract his enemy to his side. Just look at how Paul was attracted to Jesus!


Principle # 15: Later revelation supercedes previous revelation. The Bible gives abundant evidence of progressive revelation. That is, God did not reveal everything at once, nor did He always lay down the same conditions for every period of time. Therefore, some of this later revelation supersedes His former statements. Bible critics sometimes interpret a change of revelation to mean a mistake.

For example, the fact that a parent allows a very small child to eat with his fingers, only to tell him later to use a spoon, is not a contradiction. Nor does the parent contradict himself when he later insists that the child use a fork, not a spoon, to eat his vegetables. This is progressive revelation, with each command suited to fit the particular circumstance.

There was a period (under Mosaic Law) when God commanded that animals be sacrificed for people’s sin. However, since Christ has since offered the perfect sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:11-14), this Old Testament command no longer prevails. Likewise, when God created the human race, He commanded that they eat only fruit and vegetables (Gen. 1:29). Later, when conditions changed after the flood, God commanded that they also eat meat (Gen. 9:3). 

This change from herbivorous to omnivorous status is an example of progressive revelation, and is not a contradiction. In fact, all these subsequent revelations were simply different commands for different people at different times in God’s overall plan of redemption.

A person who takes the Bible seriously, rather than tries to explain it away, may agree with Mark Twain when he said that it was not the part of the Bible he did not understand that bothered him the most but the parts he did understand! (Geisler and Howe, WCA, 15-26)




Note: These notes were taken from the book of Josh McDowell: “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict.” Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN., 1999. p.47

 

Return to page: Apologetics or Bible Information