Expert: Eric Christy - 4/11/2009

Question
QUESTION: Hi,
I have been studying the Bible for over 30 years, but from the perspective of it being literally true. More and more, I have difficulty with this position, in view of obvious errors in some texts, and unfortunate people applying "promises" out of context that then do not materialise and the human dramas that ensue.
Do you have any "starter for ten" advice on fundamental principles to use to distinguish what is irrelevant, cultural, eternally true... etc.

ANSWER: Greetings Guy,

You ask one of the most important questions any thinking Christian sooner or later asks. As one reads the holy scriptures, one invariably finds errors here and there. Some of not serious, like copyist errors which are errors of names or numbers between parallel accounts of the same story/event. These are not serious because they do not affect any doctrine, but they do prove that the Bible is not inerrant.

Then there are the serious errors that do affect Bible doctrine. These are troubling to the thinking Christian because they indicate that God could not, or would not, keep these errors out of the text. But on the other hand, assuming that God could have kept them out of the text, but chose not to, indicates that He is not as bothered by the presence of errors, as we are. And in fact, the ONLY way that God could have guaranteed that errors would not creep into the text would be if He did all the copying down through the ages and then, using angels, distributed the copies to the various rabbis, priests, and lay people, as needed. Because God chose not to do this, and leaving it to man to do the copying, He guaranteed that, sooner or later, errors would creep into the text. And, we didn't disappoint Him. We came through!

Now is a good time to give you examples of the two kinds of errors. An example of copyist error would be the discrepancy in the ages given for King Ahaziah when he began to reign in Jerusalem. The 2 Kings 8:26 account gives his age as 22, but the parallel account in 2nd Chronicles 22:2 gives his age as 42 years old when he began to reign---KJV,NASV (NIV gives his age as 22 in both accounts, but admits to the error in their margin notes in 2nd Chronicles 22:2). The discrepancy in the ages given for King Ahaziah proves that there is a bonafide error here. But it is a non-serious error because it does not affect any doctrines. However, because of this error (and other copyist errors) we know that the Bible cannot be considered inerrant.

Now let's discuss the more serious errors, which I call textual tampering errors. An example of a textual tampering error would be found at John 8:1-11, the story of the woman caught in the 'act'. Here is a serious error on two counts. One would be that this story does not begin to appear at John 8:1-11 until *after* 400 AD. That's right, all copies we have of John's gospel do not have it before 400 AD. Copies before 400 AD do not have this story! Obviously, some scribe just inerted it at John 8:1-11 sometime after 400 AD, hoping to get away with it. And that's not all. The story did appear in some copies of Luke's gospel, but was removed. We ask, why? And, the story did appear in some copies of Mark's gospel, but was removed. And again, we ask, why? And guess what...no one knows why! Clearly then, textual tampering has occured with this embarrassing fiasco. God could have prevented it, but chose not to for the reasons stated earlier.

Then there are the glaring doctrinal errors in this story. For example, when the pharisees brought the woman caught in the 'act' to Jesus, they stated that she was with the man, but the pharisees neglected to bring the man, but only brought the woman. This is a violation of Mosaic Law, which required that BOTH the man and woman be brought to judgement for this act of adultery. So the pharisees broke the Law by not bringing the man, while Jesus broke the Law for not mentioning that the pharisees broke the Law! And since Christians believe that it was the pre-incarnate Jesus who was the God of the Old Testament, the God dealing with Moses, then Jesus would have known the Law, and that it required the pharisees to bring both man and woman caught in the 'act'. Jesus never asks 'where is the man'? Was He afraid that if He did ask, that the pharisees would have brought the man and that Jesus, (not wanting to condemn the woman), would have been required by the Law to condemn her? So we see that here is one violation of doctrine. There's another. Jesus, in His pre-incarnate state as the God of Moses, required that anyone judged guilty of adultery was to be stoned to death. However, Jesus broke His own Law when He tells the pharisees "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone". The Law did not require those who carry out the Law, to be "without sin". If it did, then obviously judgement could not be carried out and lawlessness would run rampant in Israel! So we see here that once again, Jesus broke the very Law He gave to Moses. Too bad the pharisees weren't very intelligent because they should have obviously caught the breaking of the Law that Jesus does...twice!

Guy, it is my opinion that this story is nothing but a lie of lying scribes who inserted a story about Jesus which earlier copies of John's gospel never had. It did appear in Mark's gospel, but was removed. It did appear in Luke's gospel, but was removed. And finally it appears in John's gospel, where it never was! This proves textual tampering has occured. And it proves that those who inserted this lying story were too stupid not to realize that one two instances, they have Jesus breaking the very Law He gave to Moses!

I have given these examples showing that no Christian can claim that the Bible is inerrant. If any do, they are ignorant of their own holy scriptures and church history, and they are lying. However, in spite of these errors, some serious, I am a Christian and in fact, knowing about these errors only ENHANCES my faith. I know my God. He chose to use fallacious men to copy His holy writ. He knew that doing so would allow errors to creep into the scriptures. That they did is not surprising. It is to be expected. That there are so few errors is what is surprising! One would have expected that far more errors would have crept into the text.

I am a Christian for many reasons. Most important are the spiritual experiences I have had. I believe the Bible is God's Word, not because the Bible says to believe this, but because of my many supernatual experiences which validate many things in the Bible. I get my doctrine, that is the things which I believe about God from what the Bible teaches. But I get my faith, my confidence that God exists and loves me and all of humanity, by my supernatural experiences. The Bible is my doctrine and guide for living. My experiences are my faith and my confidence that the guide has its source in God---minus the errors.

Well, let me know what you think Guy. I look forward to your response.

Eric



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you Eric. I had read your thoughts on Ahaziah and John 8 in one of your previous posts, which is why I asked you rather than someone else.

But my central question remains unanswered. Once you realise the Bible is not inerrant, a central question is what parts of the Bible you use to nourish your soul. Hence, what rule of thumb can be used to distinguish what is true and from God in the Bible (and therefore food for the soul), from what is not (I would add, in each of the four levels the medievals used - Literal, moral, analogical, allegorical...).

Answer
Hi Guy,

Yes, I forgot to answer your central question in my enthusiam to reveal that the Bible does contain errors of varying degree. So, here is my answer.

I use what I call The Fundamental Question (TFQ), which is this: "If it isn't moral or rational, can it come from God?" This assumes three things. One, that our God is moral and rational. Two, that humans are able to recognize the difference between what is moral (what God would consider moral) and what is rational (what God would call rational and irrational). And three, that God does not make mistakes. We can make these assumptions for one and two because God states in Genesis chapter one that He made man in His image and His likeness. I interpret this to mean that we have many of the moral and rational capabilities that God has. And if so, then humans can make correct decisions regarding what is morally right and wrong, and what is rational and what is irrational. And too, God could not legally hold human beings responsible for their words and actions if we were incapable of knowing these things. The third assumption (God does not make mistakes) is a personal belief based upon lifelong learning and spiritual experiences. The mistakes that we find in the Bible, then, have their source in man, not God, whom God allowed to copy the text of the Bible down through the ages.

I use TFQ when there is confusion about a certain biblical passage having its source in God, or man. For instance, by application of TFQ, we can easily see that the error regarding the discrepancy in the ages given for King Ahaziah is in fact an error of man, not God (using assumption three).

And the error regarding John 8:1-11 is an error of lying scribes, not God. TFQ solves this problem as another error of man. And because it is an error of man, I *never* quote from it because I know it is an error and, therefore, not part of God's Word. God gave man charge of His Word, is it any wonder then that there have been errors here and there? But because God gave man charge over His Word, He knew ahead of time that we'd eventually screw things up. We didn't disappoint Him. But errors bother God a lot less than they bother man. By use of TFQ, I can find the most likely interpretation from an errant passage, and determine how to respond to it.

TFQ is a freedom few Christians make use of. So, because they have been brainwashed into believing the lie that our Bible is inerrant, they find themselves forced to make ridiculous excuses (called apologetics) to defend the faith. It is always better to admit the truth about the Bible than to continue heaping inferior thinking upon each other in the vain attempt to keep the theological construction they have built from collapsing of its own inept weight. By use of TFQ, none of their nonsense is required.

Eric