My explanation is that the Bible was written by divinely inspired fallible human beings. They got some things wrong. They allowed their own bias and worldview to colour their reports from time to time.

But despite that, the Bible is still the most accurate and useful source of information we have about Jesus. God, Christianity, faith, and our hope for the future.

Errors and discrepancies in the Bible do not endanger or diminish our faith.

The alternative – that we think of the Bible as perfect and infallible, thus making it a god-like idol, is far more dangerous. The Hebrew scriptures abound with warnings against taking a humanly constructed item which points to God, and treating it as though it were God.

>After all, if there are mistakes

>and inconsistencies in one section, how can I be sure that any other section

>doesn’t have problems too? But let’s take a step back for a second. We

>need to note that we’re not treating the Bible any differently to any other

>situation where apparent discrepancies occur. In a court of law they do the

>same thing – weigh the evidence, examine the sources, try to fit the pieces

>together to obtain a consistent, logical picture of what happened, how and

>why.

A court of law only works properly when one side is trying to prove one point of view, and another side is trying to prove an opposite point of view. Both sides must be prepared to accept whatever outcome or compromise emerges at the end of the process. If you approach the “inerrancy” of the scriptures in that light, then we can talk. Unfortunately, some people who have similar views tend to have an attitude that they too are infallible, and if anyone questions their views they will punch their lights out. Such an attitude is not particularly helpful or “Christian”.

>>There is no doubt that if you try hard enough, you can reconcile any

>>two statements, no matter how disparate they may seem. But my question

>>is – why bother? Surely this is a huge exercise in justifying the POV

>>that “the Bible is infallible”.

>I’m afraid I disagree here. Firstly, your statement in the first sentence

>is clearly wrong – reconcile the statements that 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3,

>for example. One is clearly wrong and no amount of mathematics will change

>that. It’s the same here. This is a situation with simple assertions – a

>paradox if you like – which is being reconciled by the use of

>straightforward, logical thinking.

You can actually prove mathematically that 1+1=3. If you decide beforehand that this is the desired answer, it is actually quite easy.

But the Bible is not mathematics. To use the Temptations discussion, Matthew said A then B then C. Luke said A then C then B. The book you quoted cleverly showed how they could both be right – no contradiction, no discrepancy. The desired outcome was achieved. But only because the author decided beforehand what the outcome would be. In a court of law, if it mattered, a decision would be reached that either Matthew or Luke was correct.

>Secondly, yes, it is an exercise in justifying the point of view that the

>Bible is inerrant (notice I say inerrant, not infallible at this stage -

>I’ll get to the distinction in a second), but if that is your only reason

>for discounting attempts at reconciling accounts, I would suggest that you

>need to rethink your logic a bit.

I just do not see any reason to make the effort.

The infallibility or inerrancy of scripture makes no challenge to my faith. I think that those who spend a lot of their time “defending” scripture in this way are wasting their time, and close to (if not actually) committing idolatry, but that is between them and God.

>>If I used the same logic and methodology as the book you have quoted,

>>I could prove that the Encyclopedia Britannica, the daily newspaper,

>>and the “Simpsons” are all infallible and have no contradictions

>>between them.

>No. I agree that you could (possibly) prove that there were no

>contradictions between them, but that doesn’t necessarily imply the truth of

>their claims (Take the case where two witnesses give consistent but false

>testimony. Their consistency doesn’t necessitate the truth of their story,

>although we might say it made it more likely that they were telling the

>truth) or their infallibility. The Little Oxford Dictionary defines

>infallible as “incapable of erring; unfailing, sure”. Thus, to prove

>infallibility, you would have to prove not only that they didn’t have

>contradictions and errors but that they were incapable of making such. Note

>too that our discussion to date is not really about the infallibility of the

>Scriptures but rather their inerrancy.

How can you prove that the Bible is incapable of making errors?

>>Since the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy is unscriptural, you would

>>be better off sacrificing it before you start.

>A difficult statement to refute, since if I use scripture to argue against

>it (eg show that Jesus viewed the OT as authoritative), you could argue that

>my proof-texts are distorted from the original. Of course I could check out

>variant readings, but it all seems to come back to the fact that you don’t

>want to take the possibility of inerrancy seriously. I’m perfectly willing

>to seek out answers for apparent contradictions, but if you’re writing off

>the possibility from the first, am I wasting my time? (Actually, I wouldn’t

>be because this is benefiting me, but I’m putting that aside for a minute).

This discussion is of benefit to me as well. I am always happy to discuss scripture, defend my views, challenge and be challenged by others. As implied above, you are starting out from a POV that scripture is inerrant. I am starting out from a POV that it is not. It seems to me that the many minor (apparent, if you like) discrepancies, the textual variations, the documented problems of translation and transmission during the past 2000 years, the fact that the Bible was written, copied, printed, translated etc. by fallible human beings … all support my case.

Rather than responding to my side of the argument, perhaps you might like to list some of the factors which support your POV.

>><my server will not post this if I do not cut some out, so I will

>>preserve the analogy which seems to explain the ‘discrepancy’>

>>

>>> It is much like the report of the

>>>little girl who said, “Do you know what we had for Thanksgiving yesterday?

>>>We had apple pie and turkey and everything!” The chances are that a more

>>>careful interrogation would reveal that she had been served the turkey

>>>before she had her apple pie. But she mentioned the pie first because she

>>>thought of it first, no doubt preferring the dessert to the main course.

>>>Could her report be faulted as erroneous under these circumstances?

>Hardly!

>>

>>Quite right. The author has shown a perfectly adequate way in which a

>>careful and imaginitive reader of Biblical greek could reconcile the

>>accounts of Matthew and Luke whilst preserving their belief that the

>>Bible is inerrant.

>>

>>For most of us, however, who do not approach the scriptures with such

>>preconceived ideas, and who tend to read the text at face value, the

>>contradiction remains. It is a small contradiction, and one which, as

>>we have seen, can be explained away, but a contradiction nevertheless.

>So the little girl is lying then?

No, but her report is not so accurate that we can read it and know exactly what happened. It needs to be read in context (from our knowledge of the structure of modern meals), and we need to recognise that she was talking about a subject that was really important to her, and her enthusiasm probably caused her to tell the story in a way that shared her excitement, but was technically an inaccurate account.

Most of the scriptures are like that. They tell us what happened, through the author’s eyes, and with the author’s enthusiasms, bias and world view. The discrepancies are not “lies”, any more than the little girl’s account is a “lie”. But it would be a mistake to use either as an “infallible” or “inerrant” account of what actually happened.

>I certainly agree that the authors were fallible, but I would argue that God

>ensured that everything they wrote was factually accurate. Our difficulties

>come from mistakes made in duplicating those original documents and from

>mistakes and the inherent difficulties in translating them into other

>languages. I certainly agree that if you can find one apparent

>contradiction for which I cannot find a consistent, logical, plausible

>answer, then I would have to at least admit my lack of knowledge, and at

>worse admit that you had disproven the inerrancy of the scriptures. I would

>also argue, however, that if I can find a consistent, logical, plausible

>answer for an apparent contradiction, that issue is no longer an issue. I’m

>sure we would agree if it was any other topic, why not here too?

To me, your first sentence is self- contradictory unless God overrode the humanity and fallibility of the authors – and if that is the case, my question would once again be; “what’s the point?”

Look again at the responses you quoted for the temptations and the death of Judas. Do you really think that either is “consistent, logical and plausible”? Do you think that either would stand up in a court of law? If not, you may have answered your own question.

>>

>>But Matthew does not mention the census or any travel before the

>>birth. He has the holy family travelling to Egypt, and then to

>>Nazareth, in order to fulfil a prophecy after the birth of Jesus.

>>Matthew 2:16 (Herod killed all the boys in Bethlehem 2 years and

>>under) seems to indicate that the move to Nazareth via Egypt may not

>>have taken place until a couple of years after the birth.

>Ok. So because of their difference emphases, Matthew and Luke have both

>left some of the detail out. Is there an apparent contradiction here I’m

>missing?

There are some pretty important unanswered questions. Why did Mary and Joseph stay in Bethlehem for up to 2 years, and then go home via Egypt? Why does Luke describe a census which, according to Roman records and custom, did not and probably could not have happened?

I have clipped the rest of your post, but I do not discount it. Your “Gleason” book comes us with an explanation of the census which may be plausible, but once again, put yourself in a court of law. Do you think it really stands up, or does it sound like someone trying to justify a preconceived point of view which does not correspond with the physical evidence.

One further thing:

>As for the lack of a secular reference to a general census for the entire

>Roman Empire at this time, this presents no serious difficulty. Kingsley

>Davis (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed, 5:168) states: “Every five years

>the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their

>liabilities. This practice was extended to include the entire Roman Empire

>in 5 BC.”

If the purpose of the census was to determine liability for property tax, don’t you think that people would have been counted where they lived and held their property? Unless you want to argue that Joseph’s main property holdings were in Bethlehem, having to go there fore the census makes little sense, don’t you think?

Nigel B. Mitchell

Related Articles:

• THE NEW EVANGELICALS: HOW CHRISTIANS ARE RETHINKING ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE
• Theologians, like parents, are invited to be humble as well as (frequently) ignorant…
• The Jesus Driven Life
• INCARNATION
• Virgin Birth: ‘God degraded Mary?’

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.