ERRORSIN THE BIBLE?
Part 1 of 2

A few weeks ago, someone sent me an article written by a Scott Bidstrupentitled: “What The Christian Fundamentalist Doesn’t Want You to Know: A BriefSurvey of Biblical Errancy.” Why should this article concern us? Are wefundamentalists? Well, if you classify a fundamentalist as one who can seethrough a keyhole with both eyes open (as an esteemed friend once said to me),then we are certainly no fundamentalists, for we believe that God has given usa sound mind (2 Tim 1:7) to think, and that our lives must be transformed bythe renewing of our minds (Rom 12:2), and not by a blind and implicit trust ofall that is said to be true. Again, if you define a fundamentalist as one whobelieves in the pre-tribulational secret rapture of the Church, and the visiblemillennial rule of Christ in Jerusalem,as well as the restoration of the temple and sacrificial system, then we are nofundamentalists. But if you define a fundamentalist as someone who believesthat the Bible is the Word of God, and that in its originalautographa,it is not only infallible, but inerrant, then we will gladly take the label: weare fundamentalists. We do believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God. It hasto be so, or it is no more the Word of God.

Now, returning to the article, we are immediately confronted with an adhominemchallenge to the title, which amounts to: “Fundamentalists areknowingly hiding some things from ‘you.’ They know that the Bible hasunanswerable contradictions, and so they are keeping mum about them, hopingthat no one will breath a word, for it would then be as embarrassing as thecase of the emperor who went about strutting in his invisible robe.” Is MrBidstrup correct? Well, perhaps he may be right that this is happening in somecircles. But I would venture to say that he has made a slanderous caricature byportraying all Christian fundamentalists as unthinking and irrational. On ourpart we have nothing to hide. In fact, we are even prepared with this articleto give a greater (though modest, because of our modest circulation) exposureto his ‘scholarly tirade’ against Christ and His Word.

The said article begins with a fairly correct statement:

One of the bedrock beliefs of mostChristian fundamentalists is in the inerrancy of their scripture, the Bible.Indeed, if it can be shown that the Bible is absolutely inerrant, their casethat it is the word of God would be greatly strengthened. But, if, on the otherhand, it can be shown that there are clearly and unquestionably errors in theBible, then the position of the fundamentalist is greatly weakened, and if itis based on inerrancy of the Bible, disproven.

We would agree that the fundamentalist position is greatly weakened if theBible is shown to be errant, though we must submit that the burden of prooflies with the critic who holds that the Bible is errant, seeing that we believethat the Bible claims infallibility and inerrancy for itself (cf. 2 Tim 3:16; 2Pet 1:21; Mt 5:18).

The article continues: “The purpose of this essay is to make the latter case,i.e., that when the Bible is examined with dispassion and with objectivity, itsoon becomes obvious that it is so hopelessly riddled with errors,impossibilities and contradictions that it is essentially ludicrous to make theclaim that it is inerrant.” It is hard to believe that the writer isapproaching the subject dispassionately and objectively, for even thisstatement, claiming dispassion, is obviously riddled with innuendoes andexaggerations. The writer continues: “For the purpose of this essay, I’m goingto offer the Christian apologists equal time, &c.” Well, we are going tohave to take the writer by his word, and believe that he had unconsciouslygiven much much more time to criticism than apology (I think any judiciousreader can see the bias very clearly). In any case, it is hard to believe thathe has given equal time to study the Christian position when his sevenreferences are all obviously anti-Christian; whereas, he does not appear tohave read anything by scholarly inerrancy advocates, such as Gleason L. Archer,Millard Erickson, John H. Gerstner, Harold Linsell, John MacArthur, RogerNicole, R.C. Sproul, etc. Indeed, even the lists of supposed contradictionsappear to be a strawman collection of someone with very limited exposure toChristianity, and so a very limited knowledge of the Scripture, who is somehowhostile to the truth. How else could we describe it when the space given to theChristian “Apologist’s Explanation” is frequently left blank or filled withsome general remarks which, when read, would evoke a reaction similar to howmost of us would react when we hear nails scratching the blackboard.

In any case, the writer asserts: “I’ll show you some of the obviousimpossibilities in the Bible. I’ve left out the impossibilities that could beexplained by magic and miracles, and have limited myself to only those thingsthat just simply can’t be. No way, no how.” Well, we are gladhe allows for miracles, for God is sovereign and is not limited by means. Buthe is right to imply that not even miracles can reconcile true contradictions.

With this in mind, I shall offer some explanation for the alleged discrepancieslisted by the author. I will have to limit myself to his first and secondlists, and leave the supposed discrepancies of the crucifixion and resurrectionaccounts to another occasion. The interested reader may in the meantime want toconsult Jeffrey Khoo, The Gospels in Unison (FEBC Press,1996), to see how the various accounts do agree with one another in the finalanalysis. I may not agree with much of Dr Khoo’s theology, but he was myteacher in Bible College, and his work on the harmonisation of the Gospel isextremely useful and to be highly commended.

In the list following, we shall have to leave out both the “Apologist’sExplanation” and the “Rational Explanation” offered by Mr Bidstrup, seeing thatour purpose is the defence of the Gospel, rather than to promote what weconsider to be at best distorted views of the Scripture. The interested readermay search for the article on the Internet (I believe it is still postedsomewhere). In the interest of space, our answers have to be brief, but we areprepared to give more details in our Now, that is a Good Question! columnshould there be questions arising.

1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2 and the Value of pi

1 Kings 7:23 reads: “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits [approx. 4.5 m] fromthe one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was fivecubits: and a line of thirty cubits [approx. 13.5 m] did compass it roundabout.” The problem is, if the diameter is 10 cubits, and pi is3.1415, then the circumference should be approximately 31 cubits rather than 30cubits. How do we account for this apparent discrepancy? Some have replied thatthis is because the ancient Hebrews understood that the diameter of a circlewas one third of its circumference. This might be the case, and it would indeedbe a useful approximation. But in the passage in question, it appears that thedimensions were given through measurement rather than calculation. How then canwe reconcile the two measurements of diameter and circumference?

I believe the answer is quite simple. First, we must realise that the text isdescribing something that was made rather than a specification for something tobe made. Secondly, we can be quite sure that the diameter and height of the sea(a bowl-like basin) were external diameters, since this is how we woulddescribe an object we see. Thirdly, there is a strong possibility that thecircumference given was not the outer but the inner circumference, the relativedifficulty of measuring inner circumference not withstanding. Why? In the firstplace, the word rendered “compass” needs not necessarily mean surroundexternally. In the second place, the outer surface just under the brim wasdecorated with knobs (v. 24, or “ornamental buds” [NKJV]). If this is correct,and I believe we have a case, then the measurements will be consistent, for thethickness of the molten sea was “an hand breadth” (8 cm; v. 26), therefore theinner diameter would be 4.34 m (4.5 – 2 * 0.08), which gives us an internalcircumference of 13.63 m (4.34 * 3.1415). This works out to 30.29 cubits, whichwe would expect to be recorded as 30 cubits, seeing that nowhere in the OldTestament does ever half cubit appear for large dimensions such as this.

2 Samuel 8:4, 1Chronicles 18:4 and
the Number of Horsemen Captured

2 Samuel 8:4 states that David captured 700 of Hadadezer’s horsemen, whereas 1Chronicles 18:4 describing the same account puts the number at 7,000 horsemen.How do we reconcile this difference? Archer gives a generic answer addressingseveral other alleged discrepancies in historical books which, I believe, isquite useful: “There is no proof that this discrepancy existed in originalmanuscripts. It was probably difficult to make out numerals when copying fromearlier worn-out manuscripts. Ancient systems of numerical notation weresusceptible to mistakes” (H. Wayne House, Charts of Christian Theology& Doctrine[Zondervan, 1992], 26). That is to say: It is probably atranscription error, not an error in the original manuscript. Thetranscription, or copies, we must realise, are not necessarily inerrant.

Dr J. Barton Payne explains how the error could come about:

A possible explanation for Samuel’sshift from thousands to hundreds, especially once the noun for chariotry waslost, may lie in the pre-Christian employment of the Hebrew consonants asarithmetical signs: in this instance, a confusion of the terminal nun (=700) for the dotted zayin (= 7,000) (in “The Validity of theNumbers in Chronicles,” BibSac, vol. 136, no. 542 [Apr 79]:119).

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the Greek translation of the HebrewOld Testament, i.e., Septuagint (LXX), which was done during theinter-testamental period, has 7,000 (Grk: epta chiliadas) ratherthan 700 (Grk: eptakosioi) horsemen in 2 Samuel 8:4. Thetranslators of the LXX probably used Hebrew manuscripts found in Egypt ratherthan the Masoretic Text from which the Authorised Version is translated (seeJohn A. Martin, “Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel,” BibSac, vol. 141, no.563 [Jul 84]:209–22). Could the transcription glitch have crept into theMasoretic text somewhere along the line?

Ezra 2:3–67, Nehemiah 7:6–66and
Differences in the Lists of Returnees

The differences between the two lists are undeniable. Though both lists givethe total of returnees as 42,360 (Ezra 2:64; Neh 7:66), there are substantivedifferences in some of the entries in the lists. For examples, Ezra tells usthat 775 (Ezra 2:5) of the descendants of Arah returned, whereas Nehemiah has652 (Neh 7:10); and whereas Ezra tells us that 1,222 (Ezra 2:12) of Azgadreturned, Nehemiah has it as 2,322 (Neh 7:17). Moreover, though the total number(of men and women) agrees, the number of men calculated by summing up thefigures given by Ezra comes up to 29,818, whereas it is 31,089 in Nehemiah. Howdo we account for the differences?

The answer is again quite simple, for Nehemiah does not claim that his list wasaccurate. He tells us in Nehemiah 7:5—“And I found a register of the genealogyof them which came up at the first, and found written therein….” AlthoughNehemiah found the list more than 90 years after the returnees came back withZerubabbel, the list he found could easily have been a working list or a listwhich reflected the original number which had intended to return, before takinginto account the last minute inclusions and withdrawals as can be expected withany mass movement of people on a voluntary basis. How do we account for thefact that the total numbers of returnees turn out the same? First of all, it isnot impossible that that happened. But secondly, it is more likely thatNehemiah had access to the official records of the actual number who returned:which was kept separately from the detailed list (which reflected only the malereturnees). Notice how the final summations which give the total numbers andthe numbers of servants and animals are almost identical in the two accounts(Ezra 2:64–67 and Neh 7:66–69); the only difference being that Ezra has 45singers less than Nehemiah. Most commentators believe that these singers werenon-Hebrew artistes who had perhaps specialised in entertaining the Hebrewpopulation, and so they, unlike the servants, would be able and likely tochange their minds even after the official number of returnees (as found in thesummation of Nehemiah) was written up.

This proposal that Nehemiah did not use a list which accurately reflected thenumber who had actually returned does not impinge on the inerrancy of theScripture, any more than Ezra’s copying of the uninspired letters of the kings(e.g., Ezra 1:2–4; 4:11–16, 18–22; etc.) into his inspired account, impinges onthe inerrancy of his account.

Leviticus 11:6, 13–19 andBats and Hares

In regards to bats, our critic notes that the KJV includes bats under birds orfowl (Lev 11:13, 19), although bats are obviously mammals rather than birds. Inresponse, it needs only be said that the Hebrew oph, which isrendered “fowl” in Leviticus 11:13, needs not refer to birds only. There isanother word that always means “bird” (Heb. tsippor), but oph refersto any flying creature. Indeed, the description in verse 20: “all fowls thatcreep, going upon all four,” should alert us to the fact that there is either amistranslation or that the KJV translators did not think that the word “fowl”is always synonymous to “bird.” This oph, which crawls on all four,most likely refers to insects which generally use only four of their legs forwalking, such as the locusts or grasshoppers (note that “beetle” in Leviticus11:22 of KJV is almost certainly a mistranslation; see NKJV).

On hares, it is noted that neither hares nor rabbits (which are very different)“cheweth the cud” (Lev 11:6). In response, it must be admitted that neitherhares nor rabbits are true ruminants with a four-chamber stomach, like sheep orcows. And it should also be admitted that coprophagy or “refection,” i.e., thepractice of eating faecal pellets as found in rabbits (and perhaps even hares),would hardly amount to chewing the cud. Yet, it must be agreed that theside-way jaw movements of hares when they chew their food do give the sameappearance as that of cattle chewing their cud. Moreover, the Hebrew phraserendered “cheweth the cud” (Heb. maalah gerah) would have taken anidiomatic and empirical meaning which speaks of the appearance of the actrather than the original literal meaning of “raising up what has beenswallowed,” which coincides with the modern scientific meaning involving theregurgitating of the cud from the rumen. In this regard, we should bear inmind, that there is really nothing very special about whether the animal is aruminant or cloven-footed. But, by God’s providence, those animals that Hewould allow His people to eat would be cloven-footed and appear at least toruminate.

In other words, the criterion to judge whether an animal is clean or unclean isnot in the nature of the animal, but in the appearance of the animal, which makessense, since the people must identify what is clean and unclean by commonobservation rather than by scientific studies. We do this kind of observationand classification frequently. For example, many of us classify pandas andkoalas as bears when both are no bears at all. The fact that all the cleananimals (see Deut 14:4–5) allowed by God are also true ruminants should notdistract us from the fact that if we can find an animal which appears toruminate, like the hare, but is cloven-footed, then such an animal would beclean for consumption by the Jews.

John 12:24 and the Deathof the Seed

John 12:24 records the words of the Lord: “Verily, verily, I say unto you,Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but ifit die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” Our critic charges: “The ancientsbelieved that seeds were actually dead, not alive as we now know they are. Butagain, God should have known better if this is His word.” I think the judiciousreader will see the critic grasping straw here, for the Lord Jesus does not saythat seeds are dead. He says, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground anddie….” He is referring to how a seed shrivels up, ‘decays,’ and looses itsidentity as a seed, as a plant emerges. This is a beautiful analogy for Hislesson point:

He that loveth his life shall loseit; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also myservant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour (Jn 12:25–26).

If any man would be useful to the Lord, he must first dieto self.

Matthew 13:31–32 and
the Size of the Mustard Seed

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is liketo a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Whichindeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatestamong herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodgein the branches thereof” (Mt 13:31–32). Our critic charges the Lord for“ignorance of very basic botany” because He was mistaken that the mustard seedis the smallest of all seeds, and that mustard plant ever grows to be a shrub,not to mention a tree. Well, in the first place, only a person who is out tofind fault would attribute guilt of falsehood to the use of hyperbole in ametaphorical illustration.

In the second place, while the mustard seed may not be the smallest seed in theworld (orchid seeds, for example, are even smaller), it was the smallest knownto the farmers in Palestine.Since the intention of referring to the mustard seed as being the smallest seedis not to instruct concerning the size of the seed but to impress upon theminds of the hearers the contrast between the seed and what grows from it, thereference to the seed as being smallest according to the understanding of thehearers is perfectly legitimate and proper.

In the third place, our critic shows his ignorance of Palestinian flora bythinking of the mustard plant according to what is found in the UK or inAmerica, where the mustard plants would hardly grow beyond a couple of feettall before the season of growth is over. The fact is that in Palestine, the black mustard (Brassicanigra), which was probably grown for oil in those days, were known to growto a height of 15 feet when isolated. Moreover, they would then have a thickmain stem and branches strong enough to bear the weight of birds (seeZondervanPictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v. “Mustard”).

—JJ Lim