Return to theology and philosophy page

Introduction

For the majority of Judeo-Christian readers of the Bible, modern science poses no fundamental challenge to religion because these two worlds are, in the words of Stephen Jay Gould, "nonoverlapping magisteria" [Gould1999, pg. 1-10]. Even among those who firmly believe the Bible to be the word of God, most are willing to accept that the Bible has some imperfections, such as translation errors, copyist errors, omissions and questionable inclusions. Whatever their approach, most readers acknowledge that the Bible was never intended to be read primarily as a scientific treatise -- see Bible-science.

But others see significant issues in this arena. Most readers in this latter category insist on viewing the Bible as a perfect, complete and "inerrant" repository of God's word, with inerrancy extending even to historical, cultural and scientific matters. One group expressed this strong view of biblical inerrancy as follows: "Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching ... in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God." [Chicago1982]. The literal-inerrant approach to the Bible has also been adopted by the majority of creationist and intelligent design writers, and is the root of the "war" that they perceive between science and religion. Here are some excerpts from the writings of these scholars, underscoring how seriously they view their position:

1. The Creation Research Society [CRS2010]: "The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths."
2. William Dembski (intelligent design writer) [Allen2010]: "As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality. ... I accept that the events described in Genesis 1-11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch."
3. James Truck (creationist) [Truck2010]: "When presented with proof of the validity of Genesis and of the Creation -- not by evolutionary processes, but by a God who brought mankind into existence as wholly complete human beings -- you must either accept the Bible for what it says or reject it completely. ... This is an all or nothing proposition -- there is no middle ground to stand on. Either you believe every word, or you might as well throw out the entire Bible!"

Ironically, the notion that the Bible should be viewed as a precise scientific treatise is shared by some prominent atheists on the other end of the intellectual spectrum, who assert that modern science proves that religion is wholly false [ Harris2006, pg. 1-10; Armstrong2009, pg. 302-307; Haught1995, pg. 57] (see also Atheists).

Difficulties with biblical inerrancy

However, the essence of the central conclusion that the Bible is not infallible, and that the human element in the Bible must be acknowledged along with the divine, still holds if we set aside the "higher criticism" and just focus on the text of the Bible itself. Here are just a few features of the biblical text that argue strongly against the literal-inerrant paradigm:

1. Translation errors. The translation of a document from one language to another is always a subtle art. Translation is particularly challenging when, as in the case of the Bible, the original work was written in ancient times and uses names, terms, metaphors whose meanings have changed. Thus there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation, and all widely used versions of the Bible have flaws. Here are four examples from the King James version (KJV):
   • Isa. 2:16: "And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures." The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) renders this passage more accurately rendered as "against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft."
   • Isa. 13:15: "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined [unto them] shall fall by the sword." Here "joined" should be "captured."
   • Acts 9:6: "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." Everything from the start of this passage through "unto him" was added by a later translator and should be omitted.
   • Acts 12:4: "And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." Here "Easter" should be "Passover."

   Other, more modern translations also have their detractors. For example, the NRSV renders 1 Cor. 13:11 ("when I became a man, I gave up childish ways" in KJV) as "when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways." And whereas the King James version translates 1 Thess. 4:10 as "And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more," the NRSV renders this verse as "and indeed you do love all the brothers and sisters throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, beloved, to do so more and more." In such cases, critics argue that the NRSV has sacrificed translation accuracy to be politically correct [Farstad1990].

2. Text inserted and/or changed by copyists. In numerous places, text has been added or modified by copyists. Here are a few well-known examples:
   • John 7:53 through 8:11 (KJV): The story of Jesus forgiving the adulterous woman does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and scriptural commentaries. Although some scholars hold out for authenticity, the consensus of most scholars is that the passage was introduced in the third or fourth century.
   • 1 John 5:7-8 (KJV): "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The text in brackets does not appear in any Bible manuscript prior to the eighth century, and is widely acknowledged to be a later addition [Ehrman2005, pg. 81].
   • 1 Cor. 14:33b-35: "As in all the churches of God's holy people, Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." This troublesome passage is contradicted by 1 Cor. 11:5, Rom. 16 and numerous other passages, which mention women taking an active role in the early church. What's more, it does not fit in the context of 1 Cor. 14 and does not appear in early manuscripts [Ehrman2005, pg. 178-186].

3. Missing books and passages. Numerous books are mentioned in the Bible but are not included in the modern canon. Here are some examples, with the biblical reference where they are mentioned in parentheses:
   • The Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13).
   • The Book of Nathan the Prophet (1 Chron. 29:29).
   • The Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29, 2 Chron. 9:29).
   • The Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41).
   • The Book of Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12:15).
   • The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. 9:29).
   • The visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chron. 13:22, 2 Chron. 9:29).
   • The Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34).
   • The Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14).
   If the Bible is truly inerrant, why is it missing so many books that once were recognized as essential parts of the canon?

4. Questionable inclusions. The establishment of our current canon of accepted biblical books was a long and contentious process, with our current Bible fixed by the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE. But to this day some scholars argue that a few of the omitted books (such as the Apocrypha) should be included, and a few of the included books should not be. As a single example, it is widely acknowledged that the Song of Songs (also known as the Song of Solomon) is primarily a work of amorous love poetry, and its inclusion in the Old Testament by ancient Jewish scribes was highly questionable.

5. Literary passages. Numerous biblical passages are much more reasonably viewed as literary works than as literal historical records. This is particularly clear of passages in Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Job and Isaiah. For example, the Book of Job, with its intricate and scholarly dialogue examining of the meaning of suffering, is widely regarded even by secular scholars as among the greatest of all world literature [Norwegian2011]. Yet to assert the God literally visited the saintly Job with horrible calamities, including the death of his sons, all as a result of an idle wager between God and Satan, is absurd to say the least.

   Along this line, numerous biblical passages state or at least presume the ancient geocentric cosmology, namely that the earth is flat, is encompassed by a circle (like a coin), is set on a foundation of pillars and is immovable, with the sun and other heavenly bodies moving on transparent spheres of crystalline material above the earth: 1 Sam. 2:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psa. 93:1, Psa. 104:5, Eccl. 1:5 and Isa. 40:22, among many others. Nowadays virtually everyone concedes that such passages were intended only as literary figures of speech, not as assertions of scientific fact. But why then should Gen. 1-2, which also describes the physical creation, be singled out for a very literal interpretation?

6. Internal discrepancies. There are many instances where one passage disagrees with another. Here are some examples:
   • Genesis 6:20 says that two of fowls, cattle and creeping things are to come aboard Noah's ark, while Gen. 7:2-3 says seven of clean beasts and two of fowls.
   • Genesis 37:28 says that Joseph's brothers sold him to some Midianite traders, who sold him to some Ishmaelites (who were clearly considered distinct from the Midianites, since both are mentioned in the same verse), who in turn took Joseph to Egypt. A later passage, Gen. 39:1 adds that the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to Potiphar, an officer of the Pharoah. But Gen. 37:36 says that it was the Midianites who sold Joseph to Potiphar.
   • Exodus 12:37 says that 600,000 Hebrew men (3-4 million including women and children) left Egypt in the exodus. However, Exod. 1:5, 1:15-17, 18:21, Num. 3:40-43, 20:17-19 and 21:22 indicate that at most a few thousand were involved. For example, Exod. 1:15-17 says that there were just two midwives for the Israelite nation, which places an upper limit of roughly 10,000 on the total population. Similarly, Num. 20:17-19 describes Moses' attempt to negotiate a safe passage for the Israelites through Edom. He proposed to the Edomite king that they would walk strictly on the king's highway (a one-lane road): "we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left." If the Hebrews numbered in the millions, this procession would have taken many months to complete, and Moses' offer would have been completely unreasonable.
   • Exodus 20:5, Num. 14:18 and Deut. 5:9 speak of God's punishment extending to the "third and fourth generation" for some transgressions, and Deut. 23:3 says that Ammonites and Moabites are banned from the Hebrew congregation "even to the tenth generation." However, King David's great-grandmother was Ruth the Moabite (Ruth 4:22), and the prophet Ezekiel argued at length that children are not to be punished for the sins of parents or ancestors (Ezek. 18-20). This more tolerant view was affirmed by Jesus himself in John 9:3.
   • The genealogy of Jesus in Matt. 1:1-17 disagrees with Luke 3:23-38, beginning with who was Joseph's father (Jacob versus Heli), and every male ancestor that follows until David, as well as in the total number of generations between Jesus and David (27 versus 42). What's more, Matthew's genealogy omits three persons (Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah) specifically mentioned in 1 Kings and 2 Kings.
   • Matthew 2:1 states that Jesus was born in the days of Herod, who died in 4 BCE, but Luke 2:2 states that Jesus was born in the days of Cyrenius, governor of Syria, who did not assume office until 7 CE.
   • Matthew 12:1-13 and Mark 2:23-28 record Jesus citing the Old Testament passage (1 Sam. 21:2-7) that tells of David, when fleeing for his life, requesting bread from the local high priest. But Mark's account misquotes the passage, saying that the high priest's name was Abiathar (it was Ahimelech).
   • Matthew 10:2-4 and Mark 3:16-18 disagree with Luke 6:14-16 and Acts 1:13 in the list of Jesus' original 12 apostles.
   • Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' cleansing of the temple near the end of his ministry, while John (using virtually the same language) records it at the start.
   • Acts 9:3-7 says that the men traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw nothing, while Acts 22:6-9 says they saw a light but heard nothing.

7. Violence. In the New Testament, Jesus taught his followers to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" [Matt 5:44]. Similarly, the Apostle Paul frequently taught tolerance and love, with love extending beyond one's own people to encompass all of humanity [1 Cor. 13; Gal. 3:28]. Such teachings are in stark contrast with the violence and retribution that is frequently seen in the the early books of the Old Testament, where the Israelites "utterly destroy" neighboring tribes deemed their enemies [Num. 31; Deut. 20:16; 1 Sam. 15].

The above list is certainly not presented here out of disrespect for the Bible, nor as evidence that the Bible is uninspired, nor as justification for not taking the Bible seriously (quite the contrary), but only to underscore the utter hopelessness of the literal-inerrant approach that is favored by leading creationist and intelligent design writers, among others. Note that with rare exceptions, none of the difficulties listed above has any significant impact on doctrine or morality. It is worth noting that the ancient editors and scribes who compiled the Bible clearly recognized many of these difficulties, such as discrepancies between different passages, yet they did not regard them as particularly troublesome. It is only in our modern era, with the rise of biblical inerrancy, that these anomalies have become an issue for some.

Traditional explanations for biblical anomalies

• One of the conflicting passages is thought to be more reliable than the others.
• Some of the passages are literary or mean something different than what a reasonable literal reading would suggest.
• Some of the passages must not have been translated or copied correctly from the original (although it is impossible to determine this for sure, since we do not have original manuscripts for any book in the Bible).
• Some contextual material is evidently missing, which, if present, would resolve the anomaly in question (subject the same caveat as in the previous item).
• In the case of the conflicting accounts of Jesus cleansing the temple, there was more than one such episode (although none of the four gospels mention this fact).
• In the case of the different versions of Jesus' genealogy, Luke's version was really the genealogy of Mary (although the Luke text says plainly that this is the genealogy of Joseph).
• In the case of the differing teachings on the treatment of enemies, Christian scholars see the New Testament as a new covenant that supersedes the old covenant taught in the Old Testament. Even Jewish scholars have, for many years, acknowledged that the stern view of God presented in the Old Testament needs to be seen in a different light.

Although some of these rationales are dubious, many such considerations have merit and constitute a standard part of biblical scholarship representing a wide range of denominations. However, note that in each case these rationales themselves undercut the literal-inerrant paradigm.

Ancient and modern commentaries

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures.

It is also important to note that this general conclusion is not limited to writers from "liberal" denominations. Here are some examples from modern-day denominations that have often been regarded as relatively "conservative":

1. Paul W. Powell of the Truett Seminary at Baylor University (affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas) recently wrote [Powell2005]:

   Since no two languages have exactly the same words to express an idea, it is impossible to translate the scriptures in an absolutely literal fashion ... In addition, before the printing press was invented, the scriptures had to be hand-copied. This was a long and tedious task, and copyists occasionally missed a word or line in carrying out their work.

2. In 2010, evangelical scholar Kevin Sparks wrote [Sparks2010]:

   When the voice of creation is taken this seriously, and when we add to the mix that Scripture is written by inspired but finite and fallen human beings, then it becomes clear that Christian approaches to theology and scholarly inquiry should never pit "God's word in Scripture" against "human science." Rather, we must listen carefully to what God has said through the sacred but broken Bible and to what he is saying through his beautiful but broken world.

3. Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS faith in the 19th century, taught that the Bible is not complete, and that "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." [Roberts1912, vol. 6, pg. 57]. More recently, LDS Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (a descendant of Joseph Smith's brother Hyrum Smith), who although he was reluctant to accept certain precepts of modern science (such as evolution), nonetheless acknowledged [Smith1956, vol. 3, pg. 188]:

   Even the most devout and sincere believers in the Bible realize that it is, like most any other book, filled with metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable, which no intelligent person could be compelled to accept in a literal sense. ... The Lord has not taken from those who believe in his word the power of reason. He expects every man who takes his 'yoke' upon him to have common sense enough to accept a figure of speech in its proper setting, and to understand that the holy scriptures are replete with allegorical stories, faith-building parables, and artistic speech. ... Where is there a writing intended to be taken in all its parts literally? Such a writing would be insipid and hence lack natural appeal. To expect a believer in the Bible to strike an attitude of this kind and believe all that is written to be a literal rendition is a stupid thought. No person with the natural use of his faculties looks upon the Bible in such a light.

4. Pope John Paul II added the following on the specific question of how one should view the creation scriptures [Pope1986, pg. 161-164]:

   The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.

Conclusion

For additional discussion, see Bible-science and Creation.

References