Go back to Page 1 of "On Biblical Inerrancy"
APPENDIX
In an effort to double-check and further document the views I have expressed here, I have sought to more deeply explore possible explanations. Here I will provide both specific references for the material I have mentioned, as well as the explanations provided by Norman Geisler and Thomas How in When Critics Ask. A couple of Christians that I respect greatly for their knowledge of the faith have advised that Norman Geisler is a strong and articulate defender of the doctrine of inerrancy. When Critics Ask is over 600 pages, and includes defenses to well over 1000 “difficulties.” I should note that the authors assert a position that I fundamentally disagree with from the start: that the Bible is infallible, hence by definition inerrant. They say, “While the Bible is the Word of God and, as such, cannot have any errors, nonetheless, this does not mean there are no difficulties in it. However, as St. Augustine wisely noted, ‘If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, the author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.'” This view is at the heart of the circular, self-reinforcing perspective that I have moved away from. I may mention other explanations that I have come across in my research as well. I may provide my own views of the explanation in some instances, while content to chronicle the explanations in other instances.
[1] Noah’s Ark (Gen 6, redux in 7), two of every animal (Gen 6:19-22), seven of every “clean” animal (Gen 7:2-5)
Geisler/Howe use the word “kind” to limit the variety of animals, proposing that there are probably “only several hundred different kinds of land animals” that wouldl need to be taken into the ark, 7 of each clean and 2 of each unclean. They figure that with the dimensions and three stories (6:16) it would have over 1.5 million cubic feet to work with. “Plenty of room for all the animals, food for the trip, and the eight humans.” They say it rained for 40 days and the water remained for 150 days (to blend the stories) before starting to subside. That is roughly five months. How many more months before enough water disappears to hit dry land. Forget the issue of species variation and “kind”, just Imagine how much food it would take to feed all those animals! I am dubious of their proposed solution, but unmotivated to do the research necessary to make a compelling case here (these guys have apparently made the effort). I am content to chronicle their solution.
[2] Tower of Babylon, spreading of humanity over Earth (Gen 11:5-9)
Geisler/Howe answer an apparent discrepancy wherein it appears there any many dialects (Gen 10:5, 20, 31) as opposed to one universal language (Gen 11:1) by contending that the earlier references are actually to a later time, after God confused the languages at the tower of Babel. They don’t address the issue of mankind’s rapid spread and racial and linguistic diversity (here, anyway).
[3] Moses parts the Red Sea (Ex 14:21-23)
Two million Israelites cross the Red Sea in 24 hours. Geisler/Howe propose that the crossing was probably several miles wide and that the distance they’d have to cross would probably be “no more than 40 miles.” To walk 40 miles in 24 hours, you’d only have to travel at a little over 1.5 mph. If you have ever walked to the park with your children, how likely is it that your 9 year old could walk 40 miles at 1.5 mph without stopping? And this doesn’t touch on how the waters spread, stayed back, etc. We’ll just call that a miracle. So why couldn’t the 2 million walkers be miraculously powered as well? Why not, indeed. Like any proposal of the miraculous, why not call it a miracle and acknowledge its rational impossibility? To my way of thinking, trying to rationalize a miracle as perfectly reasonable only compounds the difficulty.
[4] Sun “stops” for Joshua (Josh 10:12-14)
Geisler/Howe propose the earth’s rotation may not have stopped completely but just slowed down dramatically (not sure how that is much better), or God may have refracted the light “through some kind of cosmic mirror.” They point out, aptly enough, that God can both stop the earth’s rotation and prevent all of the coincident catastrophes. I agree. But this assertion astonishes me: “Although we do not necessarily know how God brought about this miraculous event, we know that He did it.” We do?? We know that? Herein lies the circular logic necessitated by a doctrine of infallibility. Using this doctrine, a Christian and Muslim can compare notes on their respective infallible scriptures forever and neither can ever be wrong by their own doctrine. It is a doctrine that by definition defies proof.
[5] Elijah calls down fire from heaven (1 King 18:38; 2 King 1:10-12), carried off in chariot (2 Kings 2:11).
Though Geisler/Howe address a variety of questions from 1st and 2nd Kings, there is no mention of the fire called down from heaven, nor Elijah’s disappearance into a whirlwind on a fiery chariot. Nothing to see here kids, move along.
[6] Varied reasons for Sabbath (Ex 20:11, Deut 5:15)
The former is the initial reason (creation), the later is the subsequent reason (redemption). “Since God had performed both mighty acts for them, He had the right to state both as grounds for observing His law.” Naturally. Why would God state different reasons at different times? Geisler/Howe don’t speculate, except to assert that it is within God’s right to do so.
Gospel discrepancies in Passion story, starting Mark 14, Matt 26, Luke 22, John 18
[7] Jesus with Caiaphas (Mark 14:53-65; Matt 26:57-66; Luke 22:66-71; John 18:19-24)
This material is not addressed by Geisler/Howe.
[8] Jesus with Pilate (Mark 15:1-5; Matt 27:11-14; Luke 23:2-15, John 18:29-19:11)
This material is not addressed by Geisler/Howe.
[9] Barabbas released (Mark 15:6-15; Matt 27:15-26; Luke 23:15-25; John 19:12-16)
This material is not addressed by Geisler/Howe.
[10] Judas kills self (Matthew 27:5; Acts 1:18)
Geisler/Howe concatenate these stories, saying he hung himself, then fell and split apart. The standard response. It doesn’t strike me as particularly plausible, but it is the most insignificant of my complaints (to me).
[11] Simon of Cyrene carries cross (Mark 15: 21-22; Matt 27:32-33; Luke 23:26-27; John 19:17)
This material is not addressed by Geisler/Howe.
[12] Thieves on the cross (Mark 15: 27, 32; Matt 27:38, 44; Luke 23:32-34,39-43; John 19:18)
Geisler/Howe propose that “this difficulty is easily resolved on the supposition that at first both reviled the Lord, but that later one repented.” I find this to be a woefully a dishonest reading of the accounts in Matthew and Mark.
[13] Jesus’ final words on cross (Mark 15:34-37; Matt 27:46-50; Luke 23:46; John 19:28-30)
Matthew 27:46, 50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? …Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”
Luke 23:46: “Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.”
John 19:30: “When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”
Astonishingly (to me), this material is not addressed by Geisler/Howe!
Others have attempted to concatenate these stories (that is, pretty universally the preferred approach – to slam all of the material together and suggest that everybody just gave a partial account. Then isn’t everybody a little bit wrong? How is that inerrant, particularly by the standards of God? This isn’t the Akron Beakon).
[14] Jesus company / isolation on cross (Mark 15:40-41; Matt 27:55-56; Luke 23:49; John 19:25-27)
This material is not addressed by Geisler/Howe.
[15] Jesus resurrection discovered at tomb (Mark 16 2-8; Matt 28:1-10; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-17)
Geisler/Howe address the issue of one or two angels, just figuring it to be a matter of omission where one is mentioned. There is no mention of the earthquake in Matthew or the many other discrepancies that run through the accounts.
[16] Jesus’ great commission (Mark 16: 15-18; Matt 28:16-20; Luke 24:45-53; John 16-19)
This material is not addressed by Geisler/Howe.
[17] God is unchanging (Mal 1:6, Num 23:19), versus changes mind (Ex 32:14, Johan 3:10, 1 Chron 21:15, Jer 7:30-31, Jer 19, Jer 32:15
Regarding the places where God repeatedly “repents”, Geisler/Howe contend, “God does not actually change, but only appears to change as we change…” Later they say, “God’s immutability demands that His feelings and actions…” wait, aren’t both of those (“feelings” and “actions”) characteristics that involve change by definition? … “…toward different human beings be different. Since He always feels the same revulsion toward sin, God cannot feel the same toward a person who has just fallen in sin as toward that same person when he confesses his sin and calls upon God’s mercy for salvation.” Sounds kind of like very conditional love to me. That comment on God “repenting” (from Jer 15:6) is the only one that seems pertinent. They make no comment about the verses that say “God changed” his mind, but I imagine their argument may be similar.
[18] Anthropomorphic view of God: wrestles (Gen 32:24), speaks face to face (Ex 33)
Geisler/Howe address these instances by calling them a “theophany”, “which is a special localized manifestation of the presence of God.” Okay, interesting. How it is that one recognizes a theophany as actually being God (as opposed to an illusion or hallucination or demon or food poisoning, etc) is another matter, though I suppose it being recorded as such in the Bible is the evidence – albeit tautological evidence.
[19] Immoral God kills innocents (Josh 6, Ex 32, Numbers 31)
Geisler/Howe offer a number of defenses for God’s actions in Joshua 6: “First, the Canaanites were far from ‘innocent.’” “Second, it must be remembered that God had given the people of Palestine over 400 years to repent of their wickedness.” “Third, as for the killing of little children: (1) given the cancerous state of the society into which they were born, they had no chance to avoid its fatal pollution, (2) children who die before the age of accountability go to heaven, (3) God is sovereign over life and can order its end according to His will…” “Fourth, Joshua and the people of Israel were acting according to the direct command of God, not on their own initiative.” “Fifth, it was necessary to completely exterminate any trace of the city and its people. If anything had remained… there would have always been the threat of heathen influence to pull people away from the pure worship of the Lord.” Does this warrant commentary? These five reasons can be (and have been) used as rationalizations for most mass exterminations in human history, especially three through five. Five sounds like what a militant muslim group would declare as its rationale for killing all Christians to preserve the monotheistic purity of their culture, yet I doubt local Christians would identify that rationale as matching their own God’s in Joshua 6. This bit of reasoning amazes and deeply disturbs me. To me, it flies in the face of everything Jesus represented.
Other: Trinity
Geisler/Howe explain the Trinity in this way: “God is one essence, but three in Persons. God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three Who’s. There is one It, but three I’s.” Thinking of God as having a “center of consciousness” is interesting. I don’t know what that means. I have a hard enough time trying to conceptualize human consciousness.
They write, “The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.” This, after asserting that Christ claimed to be God (even in Matthew 19:16-30), where they say he just “asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying.”
Conclusion:
Of the 10 contradictions I observed from the gospel accounts of the passion story, Geisler/Howe address three. None to my satisfaction. That a book is compiled to deal with thousands of “difficulties” and still only hits 30% of those mentioned in the short section I addressed speaks volumes to the clarity of the material. It is a testament to the authorship in my opinion. That is not an indictment of God, but rather an indictment of what men have falsely attributed to God for the benefit of men. After reviewing a small – but in my view plenty sufficient – sampling of the Geisler/Howe book, I am left with a still stronger impression against the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.