ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?
Part 2 of 2

We begun in our last issue of this bulletin to respond to anarticle written by a Scott Bidstrup, entitled: “What The ChristianFundamentalist Doesn’t Want You to Know: A Brief Survey of Biblical Errancy.”We have thus far dealt with six of the objections, and found that they are notunanswerable as Mr Bidstrup claimed them to be. In this issue, we continue withthe rest of the 15 objections published.

John 12:21 and
Bethsaida of Galilee

John 12:21 refers to Philip as having came from Bethsaida of Galilee. Ourcritic charges that since “Bethsaida was in the province of Gaulontinis[sic], not the province of Galilee,” there wastherefore a geographical error in the text. In response, we would admit thattechnically, Bethsaidais in Gaulonitis. But if you look at the map, you will realise quickly thatBethsaida-Julias is situated right at the border between Galilee and Gaulonitis,and you will notice also that there is no other town across the river whichdivides Galilee and Gaulonitis. Now, rememberthat no city is merely a spot on the ground as it is a spot on the map, and youwill quickly realise that Bethsaidacould extend beyond the river! (Indeed, archaeologists have shown that the citycentre of Bethsaidawas probably much nearer to the lake and river, 2,000 years ago than the 2miles that divide the lake and the archaeological mound. This is because thelake has changed its shape over the period of time. Moreover, Josephus, inhis Life (para. 72), indicates that the city proper was onlyabout a furlong [approx. 200 m] from the Jordan during his days). Could notPhilip have lived on the West of the river: in the suburb of Bethsaida,in Bethsaida of Galilee, or as the NIV and NRSVrenderit, “Bethsaida in Galilee.”

I believe we can easily think of many modern parallels. I live in a place knownas Clementi in Singapore. Now,the Clementi estate lies side byside with what may be known as the West Coast estate. The divide between Clementi and West Coast is the West Coast Road: Clementiis on the East and West Coast on the West! Now, I happen to live in a part of Clementi at the West of the West Coast Road! If I tell you I live in Clementi of West Coast you would know where I live.

I think you can see that our critics will have to find something more concreteand definite if he wishes to attack the inerrancy of the Word of God.

Noah’s Ark and theAnimals

Our critic charges that it would have been impossible to gather all the30,000,000 species of animals in such a short period of time, and that therewould not be enough space to keep all the animals and the food necessary tokeep them alive for the yearlong flood.

Well, in the first place, the Word of God tells us that the animals would comeat their own accord (Gen 6:20). The fact is that God miraculously brought theanimals.

In the second place, it has been estimated that there would have only been muchless than 17,600 species of land animals (mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles)needing the shelter of the ark during the flood (see John C. Whitcomb &Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and ItsScientific Implications [P&R, 1961], 68–69). We must remember thatmany of the species of animals have developed from the original kinds whichwere created. A case in point is the fact that more than 200 species of dogs,ranging from a Dachshund to the Great Dane, all came from a few wild dogs orwolves. The same can be said for cats and horses, etc. It has been estimatedthat the capacity of the ark is about 1,396,000 cubic feet (Ibid., 10;compare with our critic’s exaggerated estimate of 1,518,750 cubic feet). Thisworks out to about the capacity of 522 double-deck stock cars, each capable ofcarrying 240 animals the size of sheep (Ibid., 68–69). Now,using the sheep as an average size of the animals that entered the ark, whichis a very good estimate since there are relatively very few large animals,35,200 animals would require only 147 of the stock cars! This leaves plenty ofspace for insects, dinosaurs (young ones of course!), food supply and room forNoah’s family.

In the third place, for the care of the animals, could not God have caused theanimals to go into a form of hibernation or suspended animation? Indeed, it hadto be so, or it would have been impossible for Noah and his family to maintainliveable conditions in the ark.

Exodus 20:5, Ezekiel18:20 and
a Capricious God?

Exodus 20:5 suggests that God will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon thechildren unto the third and fourth generations. This appears to contradictEzekiel 18:20 (not Ezekiel 18:2, as wrongly posted by our critic), whichteaches us: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear theiniquity of the father, &c.” Is there a contradiction? Of course not! TheBible consistently teaches that we are all personally responsible for our ownsin, and therefore must bear our own iniquity (unless it is borne by Christ onour behalf). But it is also true, that in the providence of God, the effect ofsin (in this case, sin of false mode of worship) will be felt for generationsto come. Children brought up under false modes of worship, which are alwaysattractive to sinful hearts, will generally be attracted to the same form ofworship rather than to return to the old paths of divinely instituted worship.A case in point can be seen in how the Northern Kingdom (Israel)persisted in idolatry until its destruction in 722 BC. There was no turningback once the practice was introduced by Jeroboam.

Jeremiah 3:12, 17:4 andGod’s Anger

Did God make two contradictory statements that He would not keep anger forever(Jer 3:12) and that His anger would burn forever (Jer 17:4). Well, our criticmay not realise it, but the Lord was addressing two different audiences in thetwo passages. The first was directed to the Northern Kingdom (Israel, seeJeremiah 3:12 itself), the second was to the Southern Kingdom (Judah, seeJeremiah 17:1). Whatever the precise meanings of the two statements, we can seethat Judah (the Southern Kingdom) incurred the greater wrath of God becausedespite the example of punishment meted to Israel (the Northern Kingdom), sherefused to repent. Thus, they were warned with the words: “And yet for all thisher treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, butfeignedly, saith the LORD. And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israelhath justified herself more than treacherous Judah” (Jer 3:10–11). I think thejudicious reader will see that the critic’s charge of contradiction is not onlydisproved, but shown to be unfounded and invidious.

Ecclesiastes 1:4, 2 Peter3:10 and
the Permanence of the Earth

Ecclesiastes 1:4 states that “the earth abideth for ever” while 2 Peter 3:10tells us that “the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also andthe works that are therein shall be burned up.” Is there a contradiction? Well,in the first place, the Hebrew word rendered “for ever” (Heb. olam)does not always mean for all eternity. In fact, the lexicon meaning of the wordis “long duration, antiquity, futurity” (BDB). The fact that “for ever”may be the closest English word to render the Hebrew does not mean that the twowords have exactly the same meaning. In the second place, 2 Peter 3:10 saysnothing about the earth being obliterated. It speaks rather of a thoroughrenovation or a renewal. This agrees with the phrase “new earth” (Grk. gêkainê; v. 13). The word kainê or kainosspeaksof a newness not of a total replacement, but a total renovation.

Genesis 1:31, 6:6 and
God Changing His Mind?

Why does Moses say that “it repented the LORD that he had made man on earth,and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen 6:6), when He had earlier pronounced allHe made to be “very good” (Gen 1:31). According to our critic, “Thefundamentalists claim that God changed his mind about the goodness of hiscreation after Eve ate the fruit.” Then he goes on to assert: “If thefundamentalist’s argument were true, then obviously God must not have foreseenthe consequences of Eve’s eating of the fruit, &c.” What do we say? Well,I’ll say that the god of the fundamentalist portrayed by our critic is neitherthe God of the Bible, nor the God we know. The God of the Bible does not changeHis mind: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, thathe should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, andshall he not make it good?” (Num 23:19). Genesis 6:6, like many otherdescriptions of God in the Bible, must obviously be taken anthropomorphicallyor anthropopathically.

God is a Spirit, infinite and eternal. He does not have body parts or humanpassions the way we have. But in order for man to understand God, the Biblespeaks about the eyes of God, the hand of God, etc., and also the feelings ofGod. Without using this metaphorical language, it would be impossible forfinite men to even have any apprehension of God. God’s describing Himself toman may be liken to a mother describing herself to her infant child. Todisallow anthropopathism and anthropomorphism would be to require that God doesnot reveal Himself to finite men at all.

2 Kings 2:11, Luke 24:15and John 3:13, and
How Many Persons Ascended to Heaven?

John 3:13 reads, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came downfrom heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” Our critic charges thatthis statement is false because Elijah also (and yes Enoch too!) ascended toheaven. Did the Lord make a mistake? Obviously not! The Lord was not evenreferring to bodily ascension to heaven! The context of John 3:13 was Hisconversation with Nicodemus, more than 3 years before He ascended into heaven!Moreover, the Lord was talking about the revelation of heavenly things, and Hewas really talking about ascending, as it were, into the throne room of heavenwhere all decisions pertaining to the redemption of man are made. He waspointing out that He alone, of all men, was in the intimate presence of God (Hebeing the Son of God, who came as the Son of Man), so that He was more thanqualified to speak of heavenly things.

John 10:30, 14:28 and
the Doctrine of the Trinity

John 10:30 reads: “I and my Father are one,” whereas John 14:28b reads: “I gounto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” Our critic says that this“makes no sense at all. How can you go unto yourself, or be greater thanyourself?” Well, it will certainly make no sense to anyone who refuses toacknowledge the verity of the Scriptures, and makes no effort to study thedoctrine of the Triunity of God as derived from the Scriptures. The fact isthat the Bible teaches us that Christ and His Father and the Holy Spirit areone in substance. There is only one God. Ontologically they are one. This iswhy the Lord could say: “I and my Father are one.” But then we are also taughtthat there are three persons in the Trinity: The Father, the Son and the HolySpirit. There is no contradiction that God is one in essence, but three inpersons. There would be a contradiction if we had said that God is one inessence and three in essence. The fact is that person or subsistence isdifferent from essence or existence. Now, in so far as the persons of theGodhead are concerned, the Son is economically subordinate to the Father (asthe Holy Spirit is economically subordinate to both the Son and the Father).This is how the Lord could say: “my Father is greater than I.”

Genesis 32:30, John 1:18and Seeing God

Genesis 32:30 records Jacob as saying: “I have seen God face to face, and my lifeis preserved.” On the other hand, John 1:18 reports: “No man hath seen God atany time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hathdeclared him.” Our critic asserts: “Here’s a case of John not being familiarwith the myth of Jacob or not believing it.” Our response must be: Here’s againa case of one who errs because he knows not the Scriptures, neither the powerof God (cf. Mk 12:24).

The Scripture is emphatic that no man can see God as He really is. When Mosesrequested to see God, whom he had been conversing with for so long, the Lordtold him: “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live”(Ex 33:20). This would immediately imply to us that Jacob could not have seenGod’s face as He really is, despite his claim. And when we come to the accountwhere Jacob made the remark, we see that what Jacob saw was a man, for we aretold that “a man with him until the breaking of the day” (Gen 32:24). Why didJacob claim to have seen God? Well, in the first place, the man who wrestledwith him was a messenger of God, who obviously had God’s authority to representHim. In the second place, the man could well have been the Lord Jesus Christtaking on a pre-incarnation human form. If that was the case, then Jacob was indeedright that he had seen God face to face, for the Lord says: “he that hath seenme hath seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). It is therefore true that “No man hath seenGod at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, hehath declared him,” but it is also true that Jacob and the Apostles have seenGod when they came face to face with the Emmanuel: God with us.

Conclusion

We noted earlier that the burden of proof that the Word of God is contradictoryand errant lies with the critic. In this (two-part) article, we have shownpoint by point that the objections of Mr Bidstrup can all be answered rathersatisfactorily if not conclusively. Rather than destroying our confidence inthe Word of God, as he had hope to, his mud-slinging have gone rather tostrengthening our conviction that the Word of God is inerrant. We humbly callupon Mr Bidstrup and all who hold the same kind of distorted view of theScripture to repent while it is not too late. If the Word of God is true, andwe believe it is, and it cannot be proven otherwise, then, it must be true thatthere is a Living and True God who will judge all sinners, and salvation may befound only in Christ and Christ alone.

In his article, Mr Bidstrup quotes Bruce Calvert as saying: “Believing iseasier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers.” It maysurprise Mr Bidstrup to hear this, but in some ways we do agree with thequotation. We call upon close-minded fundamentalists not to claim belief ifbelieving implies not thinking at all. The Apostle Peter charges us to“sanctify the Lord God in [our] hearts: and be ready always to give an answerto every man that asketh [us] a reason of the hope that is in [us] withmeekness and fear” (1 Pet 3:15). The word translated “answer” (Grk. apologia)is the same word used by Paul when he speaks about the “defence of the Gospel”(Phil 1:17; cf. v. 7). The defence of the Gospel is the business of everyChristian. If we do not know the Scripture and how to reasonably defend itagainst the pretentious attacks against it, how can we defend the Gospel, forthe Scripture is indeed the bedrock of our faith. But on the other hand, wealso call upon those antagonistic to Christ and the Christian faith to thinksoberly and objectively rather than allow their understanding to be darkened,“being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them,because of the blindness of their heart” (Eph 4:18). It is our firm convictionthat much more do not believe because they do not think, than those who professto believe because they do not think.

—JJ Lim