VERITAS
Does the Bible Err?
By Craig Branch
November 2007

Christians believe not only that God exists, but also that he is not silent. God has revealed Himself and the truth about the way things are. He does this in a number of ways. One of these ways is termed general or natural revelation. God reveals some things about Himself through the natural order. We see this in the complexity and design of nature. As the Pslamist writes, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour out speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech; there is no [audible] words; their voice is not heard. Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world” (Ps. 19:1-4). We are told as well in Romans 1:19-21 that God plainly reveals to mankind His attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, through His creation, so that man is “without excuse” (even though he “suppresses this knowledge in unrighteousness”). Historically, this general revelation is the basis of some arguments for God’s existence such as the cosmological and teleological arguments. (1)

Another way God reveals Himself and His truth is in our hearts or consciences. Mankind is a special creation in that we are image bearers of God (Gen. 1:26; 5:1-2; Eph. 4:24). Being made in His image (likeness, resemblance) basically means that we share in a limited degree some of the attributes of God. We are spiritual in nature, have personality, have rationality, have no essential nature to sin, and are able (with God’s help) to have mercy, goodness, justice, love, etc. Even after the Fall and the corruption of our nature, even in a sinful state that suppresses revelatory truth, we still make laws for right and wrong, and pursue our innate impulse to worship—though we invent our gods and spiritualities in the process (Rom. 1:18-24; 2:14-15).

It is true that there are a growing number of atheists and agnostics, even more militant ones, especially in the West. But Christian apologists can demonstrate the irrationality and inconsistency of those positions. The Apologetics Resource Center has published previous journals responding to those denials titled, “Does God Exist?,” “Creation or Evolution,” “Science vs. Christianity,” and “They Became Fools” (understanding the nature and error of false religion).

The final way God has revealed Himself is through providence and history and what we call special revelation. This is when God communicates directly to His image-bearers in a way we can understand, usually by human language. At various times this was done through dreams, visions, miracles, and the appearances of messengers, prophets, all superintended by God to His elect people. And then at the apex of history, God actually entered into humanity to finally redeem His people and to communicate in His Son and His apostles (special designated eyewitnesses and messengers of Jesus), a special revelation to the world (Heb. 1:1-2; John 15:26-27; 16:4-15; 21:24).

We believe that God’s special revelation through the prophets, apostles, and (ultimately) Jesus has been committed to writing in the pages of the Holy Bible. The Bible is God’s infallible, inerrant Word. The Scriptures, though written through the agency of men, are the very breath of God (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21).

ATTACKS ON THE BIBLE’S INERRANCY
But we live in a time and culture when this belief about the inspiration and authority of the Bible is under attack. Some of the attacks come from cults which have “other scriptures” or twist the meaning of our Scriptures. Other attacks come from humanists or secularists who simply claim that the Bible is a purely human and fallible book.

This attack on Scripture should not be surprising. When unbelievers are confronted with the truth claims of Christianity, it is natural for them to seek to undermine our basic presupposition of the truth of Scripture. Their arguments against Christianity are most often focused on attempting to disprove our claims of inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of our Scripture (Jude 3-4). For example, retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong continues to write book after book and to speak on the Sins of Scripture, and How Christianity Must Change or Die, and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. He writes, “A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship; a deity whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own. I meet in the literal understanding of Scripture, a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot believe, the heart can finally never adore.” (2) Spong’s theme in all his books is the same, “I want to say in response that the claim that the Scriptures are either divinely inspired or are the “Word of God” in any literal sense has been so destructive that I no longer want to be a part of that kind of Christianity.” (3)

Attacks on the Bible come in several forms. For one, critics may simply question why anyone should believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. On of our earliest issues of Areopagus Journal was designed in part to address this question. The issue on “The Breath of God” sets forth our case for the authority of Scripture (positive apologetics) and includes an article by our own Steve Cowan presenting “Ten Guidelines for Dealing with Bible Difficulties (negative apologetics).

Another area of attack that has been lately restimulated by the book, The Da Vinci Code (over 40 million copies sold), and the scores of similar books, have attacked the canonicity (legitimacy) of the Old and especially the New Testament books. That is why we produced a recent journal on the theme, “Do We Have the Right Books,” which refutes their spurious arguments and makes the case for the legitimacy of the Protestant Canon.

This issue of Areopagus Journal focuses on yet another area of attack upon the Bible—undoubtedly the most frequent area of anti-biblical criticism: the skeptics’ claim that the Bible contains errors of various sorts. If the skeptics are right, then the Christian’s claim to Bible’s inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, and authority over his life is greatly undermined or even destroyed. In the face of this challenge, Christians need to know not only what we believe, namely, that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant—we also need to know why we believe it. And part of knowing why we believe it involves being able to respond to the charge of biblical errors. Knowing how to respond to this charge is important both for our own faith and to gently, kindly, patiently, and knowledgeably remove unbelievers’ barriers and point them to Christ (2 Tim. 2:23-26). So, this issue of the journal is dedicated to responsibly dealing with so-called “Bible difficulties.”

Our first article is by Dr. Richard Howe, entitled, “Are there Historical Errors in the Bible?” Howe addresses the charge that the Bible contains many historical myths and errors. He points out the skeptic’s errors of misreading or misinterpreting the biblical text, and their denials of biblical veracity that have been repeatedly and consistently refuted by the discoveries of archeology.

Next, Dr. Robert Stewart, tackles the claim of scientific errors in the Bible in his piece, “Are there Scientific Errors in the Bible?” Contrary to the presuppositions of the critics, he reminds us that the Bible is not designed to be a scientific textbook, but was written using the phenomenological language of the writers’ time and with the degree of precision required for their purposes. Dr. Stewart then addresses examples of commonly offered scientific “errors.”

The third article, “Does the Bible Condone Immorality?”, is written by Dr. Mark Coppenger who addresses one of the major arguments presented by the militant atheists of our time such as Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hutchins, and Sam Harris. They claim that the Bible is in error because it approves of unjust, unloving, and cruel acts upon innocent people. Coppenger describes the numerous logical fallacies of their arguments and concludes that what appears to be immoral deeds and directives by God can be understood as moral and good when the full context of the biblical revelation is taken into account.

The last article in this issue is written by ARC’s Jason Dollar and Steve Cowan. In their article, “Are there Contradictions in the Bible?”, they address the internal consistency of the Bible’s teachings. After defining the nature of contradictions, they examine several examples of allegedly contradictory texts showing that they are not truly contradictory.

A RATIONAL FAITH
There isn’t space in a magazine like Areopagus Journal to discuss and answer every single charge of error in the Bible. Yet the articles in this issue effectively responds to enough to demonstrate that believing in the inerrancy of Scripture is not an exercise of blind, irrational faith. Moreover, each article lays out some helpful hermeneutical principles that should enable the reader to work out plausible solutions to other Bible difficulties for himself.

The honest Bible reader, though, has to admit finally that there are some biblical texts that skeptics may charged with error for which no solution readily offers itself (such as how Judas died or the Gospels’ differing sequences of events following the resurrection). Nevertheless, our ability to effectively handle the vast majority of alleged errors, coupled with our rational faith in the inspiration of Scripture, can clearly move us from the possible, to the plausible, to the probable, if not to the certain. I repeat the words of Sheldon Vanauken whom C.S. Lewis befriended and pursued for Christ while they were at Oxford:

There is a gap between the probable and the proved. How was I to cross it? If I were to stake my whole life on the risen Christ, I wanted proof. I wanted certainty. I wanted to see him eat a lot of fish out of my hand. I wanted letters of fire across the sky. I got none of these. And I continued to hang around on the edge of the gap. . . .It was a question of whether I was to accept him—or reject. My God! There was a gap behind me as well! Perhaps the leap to acceptance was a horrifying gamble—but what of the leap of rejection? There might be no certainty that Christ was God—but, by God, there was no certainty that he was not. This was not to be borne. I could not reject Jesus. There was only one thing to do once I had seen the gap behind me. I turned away from it and flung myself over the gap towards Jesus. (4)

Craig Branch is director of the Apologetics Resource Center, Birmingham, Alabama.

NOTES
1 For detailed discussions of these arguments see Areopagus Journal 7:4 (July-August 2007).
2 John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), 24.
3 John Shelby Spong, The Sins of Scripture, (New York: Harper Collins, 2005), 16.
4 Sheldon Vanauken, A Severe Mercy (London: Holder and Stoughton, 1977), 98-99.

(top)