I submitted this paper for Old Testament Introduction at Bob Jones University on September 28, 2001.
The Bible is under attack from outside the church and sadly from within the church as well. The main issue under discussion concerns the reliability of the Bible. Can men trust the Bible? The battle within the church centers on the apparent contradictions and discrepancies in the historical and scientific statements of Scripture. The solution that these critics have offered is partial inspiration, affirming the trustworthiness of the doctrinal teachings of Scripture while denying its inerrancy in areas of history and science.1 In many ways, this attack upon the Bible is more dangerous than the attack of the liberals, who have sought to find areas where the Bible disagrees with itself, not only in history and science, but in its ethical and doctrinal teaching as well. They do this by pointing out the alleged inconsistencies of its claims, seeking to undermine its inerrancy and ultimately its authority. According to these critics, the Bible not only cannot be trusted as an accurate revelation of historical and scientific data, but neither can it be trusted as a source of authoritative doctrine. But in spite of the many efforts of higher critics to undermine the inerrancy of the Bible, and thus its inspiration and authority, God’s Word remains a source of absolute truth that is defensible for all who are willing to accept its claims as authoritative.
The primary subject of concern is the matter of inspiration. Is the Bible really the God-breathed revelation that it claims to be? Inspiration may be defined as the “supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness.”2 This is a claim that the Bible plainly makes for itself. And as Warfield so accurately points out in the above definition, a necessary consequence of inspiration is trustworthiness. It logically follows that if the Bible is God’s Word given by inspiration, then the Bible (in the original manuscripts) did not have any errors. This shows the logical inconsistency of the partial inspiration theory.3 The issue is whether or not there is sufficient cause for questioning the Bible’s own claims of being God’s inspired Word. The liberals say that there is, based upon its incongruity, but the conservative position says that there is not, because the contradictions are only apparent.
One of the attacks of the critics concerning Scripture’s inerrancy focuses on its numerical discrepancies, but these attempts to undermine the Bible’s authority have been unsuccessful. All of the apparent contradictions of numbers in the Bible can be resolved. One example is 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4. 2 Samuel 8:4 records, “David captured… 1,700 horsemen,” while 1 Chronicles 18:4 says, “David took… 7,000 horsemen.” The context very clearly reveals that these are parallel accounts of the same historical event. Liberal commentators see this as evidence of the Bible’s unreliability, which is evident from the following comment: “The difference between the numbers given here [2 Samuel 8:4], in 10:18, in I Chr. 18:4, and in the LXX of all three passages, illustrates the untrustworthiness of most large numbers in the O.T.”4 But it is evident that liberal critics have put forth little to no effort to resolve these apparent conflicts.5 Textual criticism is very helpful in dealing with this discrepancy (and most others of a numerical nature). Most likely, the passage in 2 Samuel has preserved an incorrect reading. It appears that at one time both passages had “וְשִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים.” As Keil suggests, the change undoubtedly occurred as a result of the accidental omission of “chariot.” A scribe in copying the text inadvertently omitted the word “chariot,” explaining why the reference to the “1,000 chariots” is missing from the Samuel passage. Without the word “chariots,” the phrase would then read, “1,000 and 7,000 horsemen,” which makes no sense. A latter scribe then would have corrected the second occurrence of “thousand” and changed it to “hundred” in order to make sense out of it.6 Other apparent contradictions exist in the historical books, especially in the parallel passages of Chronicles, Samuel and Kings. These examples include the following: the number of sons of Jesse in 1 Samuel 16:10–11 with 1 Chronicles 2:13–15, the population of Israel in 2 Samuel 24:9 with 1 Chronicles 21:5, the number of years of famine in 2 Samuel 24:13 with 1 Chronicles 21:11–12, and the cost of the threshing floor in 2 Samuel 24:24 with 1 Chronicles 21:25. But conservatives have dealt with and come to resolutions on all of these problems.7
Critics have also attacked the Bible in its historical and scientific statements, denying any miraculous activity, based upon its supposed contradiction with the laws of science. But based on the Bible’s inspiration, all alleged examples of historical and scientific discrepancies can be reconciled. One such example is Joshua 10:12–14 which states, “The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There was no day like that before it or after it.” Liberals comment on this event rejecting even the possibility of a miraculous intervention of God. According to one commentator, “If the earth did not revolve, we would all be thrown into space. To suppose therefore that the earth stood still is as fantastic as it is impossible.”8 This commentator rejects the clear statements of Scripture based upon his inability to reconcile them with his understanding of science. He has sought to understand the Bible in light of science, rather than understanding science in light of the God of science and His revelation to man. There is no reason to reject this miraculous activity of God, for it is entirely consistent with the rest of Scripture. Archer, admitting that there is more than one way to understand this, concludes that v. 13 teaches a supernatural extension of the normal 24-hour day.9 Other historical and scientific discrepancies, such as the historicity of Jonah being swallowed by a fish, the historicity of the worldwide flood, and the length of the flood in Genesis 7:17 with 7:24, have been brought up and dealt with by conservative scholars as well.10
Not only have liberal critics attacked the Bible in its numerical, scientific, and historical claims, but they have also characteristically attacked the OT with reference to its morality or ethics because of harsh statements of judgment that seem to contradict the tenor of love in the NT. But the Bible is an entirely consistent and unified whole in ethical and moral matters as well. Commenting on David’s statement in Psalm 137:9, “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock,” one commentator writes, “It has made many a Christian shudder here in Ps. 137…. To defend it is impossible, so contrary is it to the wisdom and example of Christ.”11 This commentator hurls accusations of sinfulness to the inspired writer, and he believes he has found a passage that is irreconcilable with the biblical teaching on love. But both the Old and New Testaments affirm that God is a God of justice and a God who has enemies. Archer is helpful in pointing out that David does not retaliate against his enemies, pursuing personal revenge, for he knows that retribution belongs to God. Rather, he beseeches the Lord for the reputation of His name that He would bring just judgment upon His enemies.12 Other moral discrepancies include the wives of the sons of Adam and Eve, God’s slaying of the Egyptian firstborn, the lie of Rahab, God’s hatred of the wicked, and the marriage of Hosea to Gomer. Conservative scholars have dealt with all of these.13
In spite of the many efforts of higher critics to undermine the inerrancy of the Bible, and thus its inspiration and authority, God’s Word remains a source of absolute truth that is defensible for all who are willing to accept its claims as authoritative. Though there be many alleged discrepancies, most merely reflect a misunderstanding of the passages. Of the ones remaining that are truly contradictory, textual criticism is helpful in resolving them by discerning how scribal errors have entered into the copies. When considered in comparison with other ancient books, it is amazing that God’s Word has been preserved as well as it has over such a long period of time among such a variety of manuscripts and versions. Textual criticism gives us confidence that the extant manuscripts are indeed an accurate reflection of the original autographs. God’s Word is inspired, infallible, inerrant, and authoritative, and believers have sufficient basis to be confident that every discrepancy can be solved.
Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1982.
________. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
Buttrick, George Arthur, ed. The Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. New York: Abingdon Press, 1952–57.
Dehoff, George W. Alleged Bible Contradictions Explained. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1951.
Easton, Burton Scott. “Criticism.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, 2:748–760. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952.
Haley, John W. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. 1874; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.
Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. 10 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.
Smith, Richard F. “Inspiration and Inerrancy.” In The Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, 2:512. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. Vol 1, Revelation and Inspiration. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2000.
Notes
1. This position, as dangerous as it is in the church today, is entirely illogical and inconsistent. Those who hold to it affirm the Bible’s authority in matters of doctrine, while allowing for errors in matters of history and science. But one of the Bible’s doctrines is that it is the Word of God, a Word that is true and without errors of any kind (in what it affirms to be true). So either one must reject the Bible’s authority with the liberals, or he must embrace an inspired, infallible, and therefore inerrant book. Time has proven that this position is nearly impossible to hold, for those who allow for errors in history and science eventually begin to question the Bible’s doctrinal authority as well. ↩
2. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2000), vol. 1, Revelation and Inspiration, 77–78. ↩
3. See footnote 1 for further discussion on the inconsistency of this position. ↩
4. Ganse Little, “II Samuel,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), 2:1089–90. ↩
5. The higher critic is quick to find a conflict and change the doctrinal teaching of Scripture, while the conservative affirms the authority of the Bible and its claims and seeks to resolve the discrepancy. While resolving the discrepancy is indeed helpful in demonstrating that the Scripture is reliable, it is not necessary to come to a resolution in every instance. The conservative, knowing that a resolution exists, is often better off leaving the alleged discrepancies unresolved than attempting to use strained exegesis. ↩
6. C. F. Keil, “The Books of Samuel,” in the Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 2:608. ↩
7. Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 169–224. ↩
8. John Bright, “Joshua,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952) 2:605. ↩
9. Archer, 162. ↩
10. Archer, 82–84, 301–02. ↩
11. William R. Taylor, “Psalms,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952) 4:706. ↩
12. Archer, 245–46. ↩
13. Ibid., 77, 113–14, 155–56, 242–43, 294–95. ↩