Are There Errors in the Bible?

[Jason Gastrich]

Dear Baptist Board,

I pray you are well, today.

Do you think that you've found an error in the Bible? Has someone told you an argument against the Bible where they think there is a contradiction?

I've spent thousands of hours studying the Word and I've found it to be inerrant in every verifiable way. If you think you've found an error or if someone has stumped you with something about the Bible's inerrancy, please post it here. I'll read it and respond and if I don't know the answer, then I'll research it.

Have a good night.

God bless,
Jason Gastrich

 

[Johnv]

There are no errors of truth. There are some errors of fact, but those errors typically minor and of no spiritual concern.

We as a people of God are obliged to accept the Bible as being 100% inerrant in truth, and no one on this board diverts from that. But there is no requirement to take the Bible as 100% inerrant in factual matters. The existence of minor errors of fact does not in any way compromise the Bible being 100% true. Arguing those minor factual errors are of no spiritual value.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Johnv:
There are no errors of truth. There are some errors of fact, but those errors typically minor and of no spiritual concern.

We as a people of God are obliged to accept the Bible as being 100% inerrant in truth, and no one on this board diverts from that. But there is no requirement to take the Bible as 100% inerrant in factual matters. The existence of minor errors of fact does not in any way compromise the Bible being 100% true. Arguing those minor factual errors are of no spiritual value.

Are you talking about copyist's errors in regards to numbers, names, or other things? Or where things were maybe added from the margins into the text? If not, give some examples of the errors.

 

[Charles Meadows]

"Arguing those minor factual errors are of no spiritual value."

Nice job JohnV - my thoughts exactly!!

 

[Artimaeus]

Oh, yeah, remember the verse that says, "Most scripture is given by inspiration of God". And remember all of those verses where God says, "Hey, don't take my word for it, wait until you can check it out by the scholars and intellectuals who understand these things." It doesn't matter whether any of the stories in the Bible are actually true or not just as long they make good illustrations. Aesop had it right, it is the moral of the story that counts.

 

[amixedupmom]

Amen John

 

[aefting]

But there is no requirement to take the Bible as 100% inerrant in factual matters. The existence of minor errors of fact does not in any way compromise the Bible being 100% true.

I think we've been down this path before but the Bible, as originally breathed out by God, contains no errors of fact. Such would be a contradiction with the divine character of God. Scribes, copyists, translators, etc, may have introduced minor errors into our present text but I wonder if that is what you are talking about.

Andy

 

[JGrayhound]

No errors...period.

 

[Pastor Larry]

There are some errors of fact, but those errors typically minor and of no spiritual concern.

We as a people of God are obliged to accept the Bible as being 100% inerrant in truth, and no one on this board diverts from that. But there is no requirement to take the Bible as 100% inerrant in factual matters. The existence of minor errors of fact does not in any way compromise the Bible being 100% true. Arguing those minor factual errors are of no spiritual value.

How can something be 100% true when it has an error, even a little one? The existence of an error means that it is not 100% true. It, of necessity, compromises the truthfulness. Something can be essentially true or substantially true while having an error. Something cannot be 100% true while having an error.

If we accept 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 as testifying to the divine origin of all of Scripture, and if we accept Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie, then we must of necessity accept that the Bible has no errors of any sort, including factual errors. Things which may appear to be factual errors are simply testimonies to man's ignorance.

Copyist's may well have introduced unwittinly errors into the text. But that is a whole different matter.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Well, any way you slice it there are some apparent contradictions in various places.

Was Jesus' robe scarlet or purple?

How old was Ahaziah went he took the throne? 22 or 42?

I personally don't have a problem with this sort of thing. Two different accounts by two different people at two different times. No difference in terms of the message.

The main practical implications here (I think) concern witness to nonbelievers or explanation to weak believers.

Do we simply try to harmonize and say there is no actual difference or do we deal with the observed differences as they are, owing to copyists errors or just differences in recollection.

I favor the second option - but I'm sure opinions will vary.

 

[Pastor Larry]

there are some apparent contradictions in various places.

We should emphasize the word apparent. A God who cannot lie will not contradict himself. Differing accounts can account for some of the differences, to be sure. But they do not record contradictory facts. Copyist's errors can also account for some differences.

But again, the truthfulness of God is at stake.

 

[Charles Meadows]

"But again, the truthfulness of God is at stake."

I'm not sure I'd put it that way....

The bible is what it is. God could have given us alot more stone tablets (ALOT more!) instead of allowing His word to be copied and copied and copied by human hands - but He didn't.

I think there are NO errors of message in the bible - but there are places where two books say something a little different. If we teach all our students that the Josh McDowell approach is the best way to look at things then we'll have alot of college kids feel like they've had a rug pulled out from under them the first time they hit a religion class.

 

[Daniel David]

Jesus taught and embraced inerrancy. It is a fundamental belief that all Christians hold to.

These "religion" classes are nothing more than hyped up spam. Scripture has no errors. There are perceived errors by people who don't have a complete view of something, but no actual errors.

For many years certain things were thought to be erroneous in Scripture only to be disproved through archeology, science, etc.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Your mind might not need to ponder deep questions - but some people do just by their natures. Thus we have to be prepared to answer the "why" when certain things don't appear to add up. Consider Jesus' robe - on writer said scarlet and another purple. Which was it? It doesn't matter really! But this may be a stumbling block for someone who needs to understand why the 2 evangelists seem to conflict here.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
Oh, yeah, remember the verse that says, "Most scripture is given by inspiration of God".

You all probably caught this, but the scripture actually reads, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God."

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
[QB] Well, any way you slice it there are some apparent contradictions in various places.

They could be called apparent or alleged contradictions. Some diligent study has provided answers, though.

Was Jesus' robe scarlet or purple?

These were two, different robes. In Matthew 27:28, Jesus was given a scarlet robe, then they put a crown of thorns on His head. In John 19:2, it states that the soldiers put a crown of thorns on His head, then had Him wear a purple robe. In Matthew 27:31, it states that after Jesus was mocked, smote and spit on, they removed the purple robe and put the old robe on Him. If you read these two accounts closely, you can see how they fit perfectly together and do not contradict. They overlap.

How old was Ahaziah went he took the throne? 22 or 42?

2 Kings 8:26 tells us that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became king. If he was 42 years old, then it wouldn't make any sense.

The translations that indicate he was 42 are incorrect. Only the original manuscripts and modern translations that indicate he was 22 are correct. Therefore, we can either call this a copyist error or an error in some of the modern translations (and even some of the ancient ones). Fortunately, some translations and manuscripts have gotten this number correct.

These answers are from my book called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained. I've written a full and complete, point by point rebuttal to that atheist commentary called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Ours: http://skepticsannotatedbible.org . Theirs: http://sketpicsannotatedbible.com .

Thanks for the questions. I'm happy to answer more if you all have them.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jason,

"These were two, different robes. In Matthew 27:28, Jesus was given a scarlet robe, then they put a crown of thorns on His head. In John 19:2, it states that the soldiers put a crown of thorns on His head, then had Him wear a purple robe. In Matthew 27:31, it states that after Jesus was mocked, smote and spit on, they removed the purple robe and put the old robe on Him. If you read these two accounts closely, you can see how they fit perfectly together and do not contradict. They overlap."

This is EXACTLY the type of explanation I think we should avoid. The two accounts get a few details a little different but still are marvellously congruous even yet! The "harmonizing" you have suggested teaches students to flee from tough questions.

Regarding the age of Ahaziah - I think that's likely right as you said. Yet still in my KJB one says 22 and the other 42. As such we must accept that God used human hands to bring us His word.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Jason,

"These were two, different robes. In Matthew 27:28, Jesus was given a scarlet robe, then they put a crown of thorns on His head. In John 19:2, it states that the soldiers put a crown of thorns on His head, then had Him wear a purple robe. In Matthew 27:31, it states that after Jesus was mocked, smote and spit on, they removed the purple robe and put the old robe on Him. If you read these two accounts closely, you can see how they fit perfectly together and do not contradict. They overlap."

This is EXACTLY the type of explanation I think we should avoid. The two accounts get a few details a little different but still are marvellously congruous even yet! The "harmonizing" you have suggested teaches students to flee from tough questions.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, after reading and studying the text, what I said above is my conclusion. It is the best possible, most likely answer.

Regarding the age of Ahaziah - I think that's likely right as you said. Yet still in my KJB one says 22 and the other 42. As such we must accept that God used human hands to bring us His word.

The original autographs were inerrant. Obviously, every linguistic translation cannot be inerrant.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:
Do you think that you've found an error in the Bible? Has someone told you an argument against the Bible where they think there is a contradiction?

If the Bible has some errors, God contradicts Himself.

 

[Askjo]

Modern versions have many errors. The KJV does not.