Mistakes in the Bible? Skeptics have long charged that the Bible contains too many mistakes to be an “inspired” book. They say, “If an omniscient God caused this book to be written, why are there mistakes in names, places and events?” Truly, if this charge could be sustained, the Bible could not be regarded as a book from God. But are there really mistakes in the Bible? Are there places and events, names and narratives that have no basis in fact? One good thing about this issue is that the Bible is capable of examination and analysis. History, geography, science and archaeology can provide an objective evaluation of Bible statements. First, consider some preliminary observations. One: To charge a mistake exists does not settle the issue. Often the claims are based on spurious details, and when examined further the “mistakes” disappear. Two: Contradictions are often declared when there are only differences in a story, including more [or less] facts, all harmonious to the original story. There is a need for an objective definition of a contradiction:“Two or more statements or facts that cannot be brought into harmony with the principle of inspiration.” Three: Absence of historical documentation of a Bible event is not proof that the event did not occur. The truth of the flood of Noah’s day is not discredited just because man has not been able to find the ark. Four: Words are often used in different ways, both in secular and biblical literature. Note the word tempt, as found in Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13. Let us look at some examples of alleged mistakes in the Bible, along with solutions to the “problem.” • One blind man or two? Matthew 20:29-34 records the healing of two blind men. Parallel passages in Mark and Luke mention only one blind man. Is there a real contradiction here? No. Mark’s account does not say “only one” man was healed, but merely gives the details of the healing of Bartimaeus. Matthew wrote of an event in which Bartimaeus and another man were healed. This is one account giving supplementation to another, not a contradiction. • Did they hear? Or not? Some have claimed that a difficulty exists in two of the accounts of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. While on the road to Damascus, Jesus appeared to Saul giving him instructions. Acts 9:7 speaks of the men with Paul “hearing the voice, but seeing no man.” A parallel passage in Acts 22:9 says the men “heard not the voice.” This difference may be a bit confusing, but it is not a contradiction. Why? Because the word “hear” is used in two different ways. In Acts 9:7 the Greek New Testament uses the word “hear” to express the fact that the men with Paul heard the sound of a voice, but did not comprehend the words. In Acts 22:9 the word is used in the sense of hearing with comprehension, and, sure enough, they could not understand the words even though they heard the sound. This distinction is clearly seen in the Greek word “hear,” but is not apparent in the English. • The Hittites: did they really exist? For years skeptics claimed Bible writers merely “drew a name out of their hat” in mentioning a race of people called Hittites. Found over 40 times in the Bible, no modern discovery had as yet been made. That was— in their minds—proof that the Hittites did not exist. This is an example of the mindset of modernist scholars who say archaeology must confirm a matter before it can be regarded as true. However, it is now known that the Hittites existed just as the Bible says. Discoveries by A. H. Sayce, Hugo Winckler and others authenticated the biblical documents. In “Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands,” Fred Wight states: The Bible picture of this people fits perfectly with what we know of the Hittite nation from the monuments…Scripture accuracy has once more been proved by the archaeologists. While the Bible’s validity is not dependent on modern discoveries, archaeology has provided evidence of biblical accuracy over and over again. • The Sun: does it have an orbit? What man calls “sunrise” is not caused by the sun circling the earth, but just the opposite. The sun does appear to “rise” and “set,” but we use accommodative language to describe it. Modern meteorological scientists commonly use such terms because that is the way things appear. If technically correct scientific terms were used for sunrise it would sound like this: “The earth revolves until its tangent plane coincides once more with the solar azimuth.” Who would say it like that? Therefore, the Bible—and scientists—use accommodative language. However, we now know that the Sun does make an “orbit,” or a “circuit,” one so large it would take 200,000,000 years to complete. The author of Psalm 19:4-6 was exactly right in describing this orbit. The Bible is right and will continue to be right. Carl B. Garner “The biblical record once again has been verified, as it has countless times. Surprised? Isaiah 40:8 says, ‘The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God shall stand forever.’” Eric Lyons
Posted on: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:32:29 +0000