The Bible is inerrant - sort of, sometimes, if you close your eyes and wish
61I used to know a young man who was very religious. Unlike some of that ilk, he wasn't annoying about it: you could talk to him for long periods without the subject coming up at all. Over time, however, enough leaked out to make it plain that he took his Christianity very seriously.
One day we happened to be talking about books we had read and he mentioned the Bible, almost apologetically, but still asserting that this had to be the "greatest book of all".
Curious, I asked him why he would say that. Without hesitation, he answered.
"Because I've never found it to be wrong."
I hesitated. That word "wrong" can have such slippery meaning in the world of religion. Depending upon who is saying it, it can mean that that they literally believe everything the Bible says. More usually it means something akin to "I believe what the Bible teaches me", which leaves all the contradictions, inconsistencies and plain errors of fact to be as they are.
Inerrant
"Do you mean the Bible is inerrant?", I asked.
That actually means very little. Biblical inerrancy cheerfully ignores errors, inaccuracy and contradiction. I just wanted to see how much attention he was paying to his religious leader.
He agreed that he thought the Bible to be inerrant. I asked a more direct question.
"Are there any contradictions in the Bible?"
To my surprise, he immediately answered in the negative. That's unusual, because a person insisting on that plainly has not paid close attention to their reading - or may not have read at all. I decided to find out.
"Have you ever read it?", I asked.
Of course I have read it
That question set him back a bit. His retort was as expected - of course he had read it.
I asked him if he had his Bible with him. He had a copy back at his desk and we went to fetch it. I thumbed through it and found the first passage I wanted.
I had him read that out loud and then flipped to another section. This is John telling the same story. It's a bit different from Matthew's version.
So which is it? Did Jesus sullenly refuse to answer or was he a smart aleck?
I know that "inerrancy" doesn't require these passages to match, but this young man did not. He was embarrassed, so I took it upon myself to explain to him the slippery nature of these claims and advised him to go have a talk with his pastor for further explanation.
I don't know that he did and, if he did, who knows what his paster might have said? He might just dismiss it with "The Devil can quote Scripture" or he might have simply noted that the different accounts are designed to teach different things. He might have also insisted that the refusal was one part of the questioning and that the answers came later. It hardly matters: there is always some way to wipe away any contradiction or error.
 | Amazon Price: $21.76 List Price: $34.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.99 |
The purpose of the Gospels
A Christian may easily forget (or may not even know) that those who wrote these stories had no idea that they would someday be bound together in the New Testament. The earlier writers certainly wouldn't have been aware of the embellishments and contradictions of later writers and those later writers might not have had access to the same version of an earlier work that you can read today.
The New Testament has just four gospels, but there were many more. In a time when truth in advertising was unknown, people rewrote stories to suit their own purposes. If you hated Jews, you made them responsible for the death of Jesus. If you hated the Romans, the Jews would get a more sympathetic treatment. Each story had its own flavor and prejudice.
Much later, the early churches gathered together the stories they liked and tossed out the ones they did not. They may have even tried to destroy some stories that they deemed unfitting for any eyes. There is a controversial story that might imply homosexual practices, for example, but even works far less insulting were suppressed or ignored.
For all these reasons, most intelligent Christians acknowledge the contradictions and fall back to a more reasonable position that each writer was trying to impart important truth in the best way they could. If we substitute "political spin" for "important truth", that is exactly what they were doing and the selection of those four accounts out of dozens was yet more "spin".
Just for fun
With the idea firmly in mind that none of this matters except to the most ignorant, it is still fun to look for amusing glitches in the Bible. I want to present to you just one of my favorites.
Remember, this is just for fun. I know that it is unimportant to any intelligent Christian. It should not be thought that I am presenting this to attack your faith. I just find these things amusing.
Feeding the multitudes
The story of Jesus feeding large crowds is well known to Christians. The more skeptical atheists will note that those stories are likely lifted right out of Kings in the Old Testament:
When the gospel writers are singing the praises of Jesus, they describe a similar miracle - two of them, in fact. On one occasion Jesus feeds four thousand with seven loaves of bread and some fish and on another he feeds five thousand with five loaves and two fish.
You might think that these two stories are suspiciously similar. However, both appear in Mark, so we can't argue that one gospel writer accidentally changed a few facts or just heard them differently. Mark makes it plain that these are separate instances and they are quite close together also.
Say what?
What's amusing about this is that the disciples had plainly seen Jesus do this bit of magic previously. And yet they are baffled both times as to how the crowd will be fed. The same bafflement that Elisha's servant expressed in the Old Testament story, of course.
Again, that's meaningless. Many Christians might even laughingly accept that the stories probably did come from the same source and that even the Kings version has antecedents in older religions. They might say that it is the concept of charity and giving that is important, not any details written by unknown authors at different times.
I don't have any problem with that. As I said, picking out these little glitches is just mild fun with no malice intended. Well, unless I'm actually dealing with some crazed person who insists that it all must be literally true, of course. That's a very different sort of "fun".
Your favorites?
Do you have any favorite inconsistency or flat out error? I'd love to hear about it in the comments.
To the moderate Christians: you really don't need to point out how none of these things matter, but if you really must, then go ahead. I'm already in agreement, but you might feel I haven't presented your particular take or haven't expressed it forcefully enough. I'm sure you'll forgive my poor attempts, of course.
In fairness, I'd have to offer the same opportunity to any literalist who wants to pretend that this word was mistranslated or that the Devil affected all versions but the secret one that will now be revealed to us - I shudder to think what we might get by allowing that, but I suppose I must.
All I ask of anyone is to try not to be too repetitive. I know that's hard in these circumstances - nuance can be so important when waving away Biblical problems. I'll try to be fair, but if you really haven't added to the conversation, I might have to delete your comment in the interests of saving space.
Other than that, have at it!
A long but fun example of religious fundamentalism
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny (2)
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (2)
CommentsLoading...
Ahh, but you have rejected God...
Oops. Just kidding :)
Yes, and then on to where all the other people came from and then more petty tantrums from the Big Guy. It is a trip..
ahaha - WTF must be a religious radio station from the heart of the bible belt ... :)
We have them up here, too. Sometimes when I'm really upset I'll listen to Christian Radio - it can help me see that there is far more foolishness than whatever was bugging me.
Austinstar, it is allegory. The Bible is full of puns, jokes, hidden meanings. Jesus said right out he was telling parables, stories meant not to be taken literally.
As for contradictions, my favorite is Jesus' last words, quite different in the different gospels.
Well, maybe. There are many theories as to Jesus and of course some question as to his existence at all. If he did exist, what was he? God, prophet, mad man, freedom fighter?
(“It hardly matters: there is always some way to wipe away any contradiction or error.”)
There is a difference between supposed contradiction and error, and the real thing.
Jesus was silent regarding the accusations from the chief priests and elders as told in verse 12.
When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. - Matthew 27:12
Jesus did not answer to the charges, or try to defend Himself. This provoked His indictment.
In the book John, there is an expansion in broader detail on what Jesus said to *Pilate* about His kingdom.
The difference between Mathew and John is the distinction between a summary and an account with greater detail, not a contradiction.
(“What's amusing about this is that the disciples had plainly seen Jesus do this bit of magic previously. And yet they are baffled both times as to how the crowd will be fed.”)
It is not bafflement, but they are simply coming to Jesus for instructions on what is to be done.
If you continue reading to Mark 6:38, - “How many loaves do you have?” he asked. “Go and see.” When they found out, they said, “Five—and two fish.”
If you continue reading to the next verse, Mark 8:5, - “How many loaves do you have?” Jesus asked. “Seven,” they replied.
(“With the idea firmly in mind that none of this matters except to the most ignorant, it is still fun to look for amusing glitches in the Bible.”)
(“Do you have any favorite inconsistency or flat out error?”)
I think you mean amusing distinctions, instead of “glitches,” with your provided examples.
Of course for your own amusement sake and others, “just for fun” conjecture and parody work in comedy all the time.
tmb - "The Bible is full of puns, jokes, hidden meanings"
AHA! Mere mortals do not have the brains to understand. It is not for us to question the wisdom of the gods!
PC - It is ok to find amusement in the bible then.
P&N - again - WTF are you talking about?
As I said, they sweep it away with absolutely no shame :)
Austinstar, I didn't even imply that. I don't get the puns, of course, since I don't speak Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. A lot of the rest I don't understand well in context, because I haven't studied thoroughly. Some parts may be beyond my intelligence or wisdom, and some bits actually secret.
It is fine to find amusement in the Bible. Some parts are pretty funny. Read the story of Abraham bargaining with God. Hilarious.
By the way, I said glitches and I meant it :)
Austinstar,
("P&N - again - WTF are you talking about?")
First we have to do a bit of historical research.
Historical research eh? Then I guess you cannot explain things without the use of other peoples thoughts and ideas. You would make a lot more sense if you would just state your comments in your own words.
I know PC is asking for quotes, but I think he also wants a 'Christian' interpretation of those quotes. Go ahead and amuse him and help me to understand YOUR thinking.
If it is Christian explanations of Bible glitches, it won't make sense to anyone but them. We already have examples above.
Hey PC
I'm here to help you find your way to faith with one of the best explanations of the Bible I have ever seen. This will surely make a believer out of you.
Hi chef - However did you know that God was Australian? Whoa, funny stuff. I might have to learn to believe things myself so I won't have to burn forever in some lake of fire. I would much rather worship a God for eternity for saving me because he screwed up in the first place.
Pcnix
It is when believer of the accuracy (denial of historical inconsistencies) of the bible read the stories horizontally (read a story in one gospel or book and then read the same story in another gospel of book, like you did with you friend) is when the errors are found. I know I never heard of any of these inconsistencies from any pastor; I deduced that there must be such, as I found out before I even made it out of parochial school that bible was not only written by different authors, but that they were written years and centuries apart...so, not written by god, or necessarily the apostles or who were even credited as being authors told me that there had to be inconsistencies.
I think what you did for your friend and the advice you gave him was great.
Read Jesus, Interrupted? by Bart Ehrman. You probably know about all the examples or inconsistences, but he delves into the reasons for it (practices of the time, motivations for skewing or changing accounts, etc.), but he also goes into how such examples are not necessarily reasons for losing faith. Still, In light of not only the inconsistences and the historical evidence, I find it frightening to find so many true believers in the bible.
Great hub and enjoyable read.
I haven't "lost" faith. I was never fool enough to have any :)
Unless I missed it, I'm surprised to not see the wife/sister stories duplicated three times in Genesis. Unless you're only sticking to the gospels here. If so I apologize for going off-theme...
All 3 stories tell the same basic tale. Man and wife enter a land, people of land see wife as beautiful, run and tell ruler of land, for fear of being killed husband tells wife to say they're sister/brother, ruler takes wife into home, God plagues ruler, ruler gets mad that he was lied to, pays man in stuff and sends him on his way.
Gen 12 - Abram (Abraham) and Egyptian Pharaoh (no name given)
Gen 20 - Abraham and Abimelech
Gen 26 - Isaac and Abimelech
Obviously, it's kind of hard to believe this same situation would happen 3 times, two of those times being Abraham. And it's really hard to believe Abimelech would fall for that twice!
This was apparently a popular story around that time. It maybe happened once, but no way of knowing which one really. But this does give a good indication at how pieced together Genesis is.
Moral guidance can be gained, certainly, but there's a lot to know about the makeup of the bible before really trying to say with any certainty what's what. Being binded in one single book as it is nowadays can be misleading.
Both Matthew and Luke give the ancestry of Jesus back to David and Jesse. They are not the same.
Since they are rather longish, the discrepancy could easily have arisen through faulty human memory - I doubt either writer took notes. Nevertheless, the two geneologies are different.
Oh, come on. These "discrepancies" are obviously juicing up the story to make it all more magical for the gullible. Faulty memory has nothing to do with it. Besides, all of these were written long after by pople who saw nothing.
The reasons for the fake ancestry are to satisfy the Old Testament prediction that the Messiah would be of David's line. Pure fiction added later.
People remember things differently. This isn't news. You take any event witnessed by multiple people, you're going to get the same basic story, but each individual remembers specific details very differently. Out of 10, at least one could have sworn that guy's coat was red, or whatever. That doesn't mean the event didn't happen just because the different accounts don't match up exactly.
Like the example you gave of the conversation between Jesus and Pilot. How is that any different than hearing two people describe any conversation they both heard? Especially months or years later when it was actually written down. That's just people.
Matthew said he made no reply to the charges. John gave a more detailed account. If you read John's, he did not make a definitive statement regarding the charges. He didn't say yes I did this or no I didn't do that. So someone might describe hearing that same conversation as 'he did not reply to the charges'.
I can maybe see the 'fun' in this, but if you're trying to get anything more than that out of this I think you're wasting your time.
Oh, Headly, you are talking through your hat as you always do. Even Christians know that your Bible has been messed with in the interests of selling the religion.
I don't deny that. Like I said earlier, "there's a lot to know about the makeup of the bible before really trying to say with any certainty what's what."
Most religions that strictly stand by the idea that the bible is without error is because as an organization you have to establish some sort of certainty. Allowing an opening like possible errors makes it hard to decree anything with certainty.
Kind of like the staunch opposition to what they call 'heresy'. Basically that all means, don't question, just do. God has no problem with questions from what I can tell. That's what my hat says, anyway. It's religion that does.
There are no gods, Headly. Your Bible was written and rewritten by people just like you. Like you do, they made it all up.
Sure, Pcunix, I get that that's what you believe. But without proof, you making a statement like that as fact has just as much basis as anything else.
Without proof, it's all belief. You just have faith that we'll ultimately prove there is no God through science. That hasn't happened yet. If it ever does happen it will most likely be long after you and I are gone, so until then you just have faith that's how it will turn out.
If either of us knew any of this as absolute, provable fact, there'd be nothing to discuss.
But I DO know there are no gods. That's fact, not faith. See http://pcunix.hubpages.com/hub/Arguing-with-the-re
Uh-oh, watch it, Pcunix. Now you're starting to sound like me. Stating you know something that's eluded the rest of the world. Though I don't go so far as to call anything I say 'fact'. Emma couldn't believe my gall. Sometimes I can't either. But for some reason I'm sure she'd be perfectly fine with this.
That definitely sounds interesting. I'm at work now, but plan on giving this it's due attention, so I'll get back to you when I have more. If I don't then that maybe means you've completely wrecked my faith and I'm probably out living it up and fornicating. Just kidding.
I don't sound like you. I'm rational and you are not.
I know you are, but what am I.
Look, let's keep the judgement of each others rationality out of it and just stay on topic if we could. If your hub ultimately proves you to be somebody worthy of listening to because you have in fact figured something out that the rest of the world has not, then I'll maybe listen to you and re-evaluate my rationality.
Until then, we're both just a couple of internet kooks claiming to know something most of the rest of world does not.
Headly, I don't expect you to have the capacity to understand it. Don't even bother - it's not for you and I have no interest in converting you or in hearing your opinion. You need to be religious, so be religious and be happy.
Oh come on, don't start back-peddling now. I haven't even read it yet. Usually in any debate or discussion between two parties that do not see eye to eye, a tell-tale sign that one side has either realized they've overstepped in making a claim or has realized they actually have nothing of substance to dispute the opposing claim, is when they begin to attack the other party's credibility. Don't be that guy.
I don't debate theists. I'm perfectly happy for you to go on believing your silly god stuff. It's obviously useful to you, so why not?
I write to help other atheists, not to change the minds of theists.
Yeah, you said something about that in the beginning of that hub. I get that. I understand isolation. Being on an island between both sides as I am, I know a little something about it. That's kind of how I felt trying to talk to you and Emma and Secularist10 the other day.
I often find I too struggle to be around other Christians as well because most of them base many of their beliefs on logic I just don't agree with.
I don't allow people around me to feel isolated if I can help it. No matter if they're theists, atheists, wickens, etc. And while I can understand how atheists can feel isolated, and I understand the want to help, I don't agree with turning the table being an acceptable alternative. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I'll read your hub and will pass on anything if I feel I have anything of worth. After all, you didn't give me that link to try to change my mind, you did so to back up what you said. I'd like to know what the truth is. If you have some, I'm interested. If you don't, I'll move on.
That's fine. As I said, I didn't write it to convince you, so please don't bother to argue with me about it. I tend to delete that kind of comment unless it is extremely unusual.
Headly, I had to delete your comment there. I can't accept irrational ranting. Please don't do that again.
So, no willingness to reach across the aisle to help someone understand how you find that irrational? You feel you're helping the atheist cause by behaving as an intolerant elistist unwilling to help someone you find delusional who actually asks you to help him understand? Now that I've formed these views I am no longer worth anything in your eyes? I've become just another face of the religious oppressors that isolated you and there's no hope for me now?
Though I can see and understand the cause you speak of, I don't see the point in posting hubs that you know will stir the proverbial hornets nest, to only then be standoffish and dismisive.
I don't see that you've given much consideration to the big picture here. Our country's divided, theists and atheists are divided, practically in half population wise (counting non-religious and agnosticism). I'm not sure stoking the fires is the right approach.
Thanks for reading it, I guess.
You were never worth anything in my eyes. You are just another ranting fundamentalist.
Noted, thanks for your time.
Great article. Well written and thought out. My evangelist cousin implores me to read the bible as if I would magically open this book and become a born again zombie who tosses aside logic and basic reasoning. I have read the bible and as as anyone who approaches it from a logical stand point with a healthy dose of skepticism, would, one can only come across with the feeling that its a bunch of nonsense from the first chapter. My cousin wants me to skip ahead to the "good parts" and not get bogged down by the "historical Old Testament".
I love "skip ahead to the good parts" :)
What a shame, you'll miss all the best parts of the Bible. The "Good Book" gives me permission, Nay, a directive to stone lots of people to death, what fun!
We could start with all the politicians that speak (work) on the Sabbath, add in the adulterers (Newt??). Women who are not virgins on their wedding night is a good one. Fathers are supposed to show the sheets from the wedding bed in the town square to prove his daughter's virginity. We ought to bring that back. Maybe if we elect Santorum... after all the separation of church and state makes him throw up
Austinstar Level 7 Commenter 3 months ago
My biggest gripe about the Bible is the very first chapter of Genesis. I mean the whole chapter is such fantasy - talking snakes, stopping Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of life and living forever (God kicks them out so they can't do that), God speaking in the editorial "us" - "Man has become as one of us knowing the difference between good and evil etc..." The whole destroy everything and start over deals. The whole thing is just WTF? to me.