The following is the introduction of Geisler & Howe's book "When Critics
Ask" and explains many of the errors critics and skeptics make when bringing
up their claimed errors, contradictions and the like in the Bible.


---

How to Approach Bible Difficulties
by Norman L. Geisler & Thomas A. Howe

(Geisler, Norman L. ; Howe, Thomas A.: When Critics Ask : A Popular Handbook
on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1992, S. 11)

THE BIBLE: ERRORS, NO!

Critics claim the Bible is filled with errors. Some even speak of thousands
of mistakes. The truth is there is not even one demonstrated error in the
original text of the Bible. This is not to say that there are not
difficulties in our Bibles. There are, and that is what this book is all
about. It is only to point out that there are not actual errors in the
Scriptures. Why? Because the Bible is the Word of God, and God cannot err.
Come let us reason. Let's put it in logical form and then examine the
premises:

GOD CANNOT ERR.
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.
THEREFORE, THE BIBLE CANNOT ERR.

As any student of logic knows, this is a valid syllogism (form of
reasoning). So, if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. As we
will show, the Bible clearly declares itself to be the Word of God.1 It also
informs us that God cannot err. The conclusion, then, is inevitable. The
Bible cannot err. If the Bible erred in anything it affirms, then God would
be mistaken. But God cannot make mistakes.

God Cannot Err

In the many years of being on BBS'es, computer networks, chatrooms, IRC,
mIRC, discussion rooms, Usenet and various other electronic discussion
groups of a Christian nature I have run across many skeptics and critics who
point out perceived contradictions, errors, and difficulties in the Bible. I
learned early on that showing them they were in error concerning their error
allegations was a waste of time. Over time I purchased several excellent
books written by learned men of God who addressed these Bible difficulties
and showed why they truly weren't the errors, contradictions, etc. the
skeptics and critics claimed they were. Another ironic twist to this was
that it also became quite clear that the critics and skeptics kept bring up
the same allegations over and over again. Turns out there's a limited list
(unlike the "thousands upon thousands" as some critics allege) of
difficulties that have been brought up and each and every one of them have
already been long addressed and adequately explained by Christian
theologians, teachers and other learned men of God. One of the best books in
my opinion is "When Critics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe (a
companion book to "When Skeptics Ask" and "When Cultists Ask"). I also
highly recommend New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by
Gleason L. Archer, Jr. to anyone wishing to read rebuttals to the repeated
difficulties that prove to not all that difficult at all.

The following is the introduction of Geisler & Howe's book "When Critics
Ask" and explains many of the errors critics and skeptics make when bringing
up their claimed errors, contradictions and the like in the Bible.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/

---

How to Approach Bible Difficulties
by Norman L. Geisler & Thomas A. Howe

(Geisler, Norman L. ; Howe, Thomas A.: When Critics Ask : A Popular Handbook
on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1992, S. 11)

THE BIBLE: ERRORS, NO!

Critics claim the Bible is filled with errors. Some even speak of thousands
of mistakes. The truth is there is not even one demonstrated error in the
original text of the Bible. This is not to say that there are not
difficulties in our Bibles. There are, and that is what this book is all
about. It is only to point out that there are not actual errors in the
Scriptures. Why? Because the Bible is the Word of God, and God cannot err.
Come let us reason. Let's put it in logical form and then examine the
premises:

GOD CANNOT ERR.
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.
THEREFORE, THE BIBLE CANNOT ERR.

As any student of logic knows, this is a valid syllogism (form of
reasoning). So, if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. As we
will show, the Bible clearly declares itself to be the Word of God.1 It also
informs us that God cannot err. The conclusion, then, is inevitable. The
Bible cannot err. If the Bible erred in anything it affirms, then God would
be mistaken. But God cannot make mistakes.

God Cannot Err

The Scriptures declare emphatically that "it is impossible for God to lie"
(Heb. 6:18). Paul speaks of the "God who cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). He is a
God who, even if we are faithless, "He remains faithful; He cannot deny
Himself " (2 Tim. 2:13). God is truth (John 14:6) and so is His Word. Jesus
said to the Father, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). The psalmist
exclaimed, "The entirety of Your word is truth" (Ps. 119:160).

The Bible Is the Word of God

Jesus referred to the OT as the "Word of God" which "cannot be broken" (John
10:35). He said, "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter,
not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
until everything is accomplished" (Matt. 5:18, niv). Paul added, "All
Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16, niv). It came "from the mouth of
God" (Matt. 4:4). Although human authors recorded the messages, "prophecy
never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were
carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20, niv).2

Jesus said to the religious leaders of His day, "You nullify the Word of God
by your tradition" (Mark 7:13, niv). Jesus turned their attention to the
written Word of God by affirming over and over again, "It is written . It is
written . It is written ." (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). This phrase occurs over
ninety times in the NT. It is a strong indication of the divine authority of
the written Word of God. Stressing the unfailing nature of God's truth, the
Apostle Paul referred to the Scriptures as "the Word of God" (Rom. 9:6). The
writer of Hebrews declared that "the Word of God is living and active.
Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and
spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the
heart" (Heb. 4:12, niv).

The Logical Conclusion: The Bible Cannot Err

Yes God has spoken, and He has not stuttered. The God of truth has given us
the Word of Truth, and it does not contain any untruth in it. The Bible is
the unerring Word of God.3

Can the Bible be Trusted in Science and History?

Some have suggested that Scripture can always be trusted on moral matters,
but it is not always correct on historical matters. They rely on it in the
spiritual domain, but not in the sphere of science. If true, however, this
would render the Bible ineffective as a divine authority, since the
spiritual is often inextricably interwoven with the historical and
scientific.

A close examination of Scripture reveals that the scientific (factual) and
spiritual truths of Scripture are often inseparable. For example, one cannot
separate the spiritual truth of Christ's resurrection from the fact that His
body permanently vacated the tomb and later physically appeared (Matt. 28:6;
1 Cor. 15:13-19). Likewise, if Jesus was not born of a biological virgin,
then He is no different from the rest of the human race on whom the stigma
of Adam's sin rests (Rom. 5:12). Likewise, the death of Christ for our sins
cannot be detached from His shedding literal blood on the cross, for
"without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). And Adam's
existence and fall cannot be a myth. If there were no literal Adam and no
actual fall, then the spiritual teaching about inherited sin and eventual or
physical death are wrong (Rom. 5:12). Historical reality and the theological
doctrine stand or fall together.

Also, the doctrine of the Incarnation is inseparable from the historical
truth about Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1, 14). Further, Jesus' moral teaching
about marriage was based on His teaching about God's joining a literal Adam
and Eve together in marriage (Matt. 19:4-5). In each of these cases the
moral or theological teaching is devoid of its meaning apart from the
historical or factual event. If one denies that the literal space-time event
occurred, then there is no basis for believing the scriptural doctrine built
upon it.

Jesus often directly compared OT events with important spiritual truths,
such as His death and resurrection which were related to Jonah and the great
fish (Matt. 12:40). Or, His second coming as compared to the days of Noah
(Matt. 24:37-39). Both the occasion and the manner of that comparison make
it clear that Jesus was affirming the historicity of those OT events.
Indeed, Jesus asserted to Nicodemus, "If I told you earthly things and you
do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John
3:12) In short, if the Bible does not speak truthfully about the physical
world, then it cannot be trusted when it speaks about the spiritual world.
The two are intimately related.

Inspiration includes not only all that the Bible explicitly teaches, but
also everything the Bible touches. This is true whether the Bible is
touching upon history, science, or mathematics. Whatever the Bible declares,
is true-whether it is a major point or a minor point. The Bible is God's
Word, and God does not deviate from the truth in any point. All the parts
are as true as the whole that they comprise.

If It Is Inspired, Then It Is Inerrant

Inerrancy is a logical result of inspiration. For, inerrancy means wholly
true and without error. And what God breathes out (inspires) must be wholly
true (inerrant). However, it is helpful to specify more clearly what is
meant by "truth" and what would constitute an "error."4 By truth we signify
that which corresponds to reality. An error, then, is what does not
correspond to reality. Truth is telling it like it is. Error is not telling
it like it is. Hence, nothing mistaken can be true, even if the author
intended his mistake to be true. An error is a mistake, not simply something
that is misleading. Otherwise, every sincere utterance ever made is true,
even those that were grossly mistaken.5 Likewise, something is not true
simply because it accomplishes its intended purpose, since many lies
succeed.

The Bible clearly views truth as that which corresponds to reality. Error is
understood as a lack of correspondence to reality, not as intentionally
misleading. This is evident from the fact that the word "error" is used of
unintentional mistakes (Lev. 4:2). The Bible everywhere implies a
correspondence view of truth. For example, when the Ten Commandments declare
"You shall not bear false testimony" (Ex. 20:16), it implies that
misrepresenting the facts is wrong. Likewise, a correspondence view of truth
is used when the Jews said to the governor about Paul, "By examining him
yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are
bringing against him." In so doing, he adds, "You can easily verify the
facts" (cf. Acts 24:8).

"Has God Said?"

Of course, wherever God has made the truth clear, Satan's strategy is to
cast doubt on it. Whenever God has spoken with authority, the devil desires
to undermine it. "Did God really say that?" he sneers (cf. Gen. 3:1). This
confusion often takes the following form. The Bible may be the inspired Word
of God in some sense, but it is also human words. It had human authors, and
"to err is human." Hence, we are to expect some errors in the Bible. So goes
the argument. In short, the clear and simple truth of God has been confused
by the lie of Satan, the master of lies (John 8:44).

Let's analyze what is wrong with this reasoning. A simple analogy will help.
Consider some parallel but equally faulty reasoning:
1. Jesus was a human being.
2. Human beings sin.
3. Therefore, Jesus sinned.

Any Bible student can readily see that this conclusion is wrong. Jesus was
"without sin" (Heb. 4:15). He "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus was "a lamb
without blemish or defect" (1 Peter 1:19). As John said of Jesus, "He is
pure" and "righteous" (1 John 2:1; 3:3). But, if Jesus never sinned, then
what is wrong with the above argument that Jesus is human and humans sin,
therefore, Jesus sinned? Where does the logic go astray?

The mistake is to assume that Jesus is like any other human. Sure, mere
human beings sin. But, Jesus was not a mere human being. He was a perfect
human being. Indeed, Jesus was not only human, but He was also God.
Likewise, the Bible is not a mere human book. It is also the Word of God.
Like Jesus, it is both divine and human. And just as Jesus was human but did
not sin, even so the Bible is a human book but does not err. Both God's
living Word (Christ) and His written Word (Scripture) are human but do not
err. They are divine and cannot err. There can no more be an error in God's
written Word than there was a sin in God's living Word. God cannot err,
period.

THE BIBLE: DIFFICULTIES, YES!

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."6 The mistakes are not in the revelation
of God, but are in the misinterpretations of man.

The Bible is without mistake, but the critics are not. All their allegations
of error in the Bible are based on some error of their own. Their mistakes
fall into the following main categories.

Mistake 1: Assuming that the Unexplained Is Not Explainable.
No informed person would claim to be able to fully explain all Bible
difficulties. However, it is a mistake for the critic to assume, therefore,
that what has not yet been explained never will be explained. When a
scientist comes upon an anomaly in nature, he does not give up further
scientific exploration. Rather, he uses the unexplained as a motivation to
find an explanation. No real scientist throws up her hands in despair simply
because she cannot explain a given phenomenon. She continues to do research
with the confident expectation that an answer will be found. And, the
history of science reveals that her faith has been rewarded over and over
again.

Scientists, for example, once had no natural explanation of meteors,
eclipses, tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Until recently, scientists
did not know how the bumblebee could fly. All of these mysteries have
yielded their secrets to the relentless patience of science. Neither do
scientists know how life can grow on thermo-vents in the depths of the sea.
But, no scientist throws in the towel and cries "contradiction!"

Likewise, the Christian scholar approaches the Bible with the same
presumption that what is thus far unexplained is not therefore
unexplainable. He or she does not assume that discrepancies are
contradictions. And, when he encounters something for which he has no
explanation, he simply continues to do research, believing that one will
eventually be found. In fact, if he assumed the opposite, he would stop
studying. Why pursue an answer when one assumes there is none. Like his
scientific counterpart, the Bible student has been rewarded for his faith
and research. For, many difficulties for which scholars once had no answer
have yielded to the relentless pursuit of truth through history,
archaeology, linguistics, and other disciplines. For example, critics once
proposed that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible
because there was no writing in Moses' day. Now we know that writing was in
existence a couple of thousand years or more before Moses. Likewise, critics
once believed that the Bible was wrong in speaking of the Hittite people,
since they were totally unknown to historians. Now, all historians know of
their existence by way of their library that was found in Turkey. This gives
us confidence to believe that the biblical difficulties that have not yet
been explained have an explanation and that we need not assume there is a
mistake in the Bible.

Mistake 2: Presuming the Bible Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
Many critics assume the Bible is wrong until something proves it right.
However, like an American citizen charged with an offense, the Bible should
be presumed "innocent" until it is proven guilty. This is not asking
anything special for the Bible, it is the way we approach all human
communications. If we did not, life would not be possible. For example, if
we assumed road signs and traffic signals were not telling the truth, then
we would probably be dead before we could prove they were telling the truth.
Likewise, if we assume food labels are wrong until proven right, we would
have to open up all cans and packages before buying. And what if we presumed
all the numbers on our currency were wrong? And what if we assumed all
restroom signs were wrong! Well, enough is enough.

The Bible, like any other book, should be presumed to be telling us what the
authors said and heard. Negative critics of the Bible begin with just the
opposite presumption. Little wonder, then, that they conclude the Bible is
riddled with error.

Mistake 3: Confusing Our Fallible Interpretations with God's Infallible
Revelation.
Jesus affirmed that the "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). As an
infallible book, the Bible is also irrevocable. Jesus declared, "Truly I say
to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke
shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished" (Matt. 5:18, niv;
cf. Luke 16:17). The Scriptures also have final authority, being the last
word on all it discusses. Jesus employed the Bible to resist the tempter
(Matt. 4:4, 7, 10), to settle doctrinal disputes (Matt. 21:42), and to
vindicate His authority (Mark 11:17). Sometimes a biblical teaching rests on
a small historical detail (Heb. 7:4-10), a word or phrase (Acts 15:13-17),
or even the difference between the singular and the plural (Gal. 3:16). But,
while the Bible is infallible, human interpretations are not. The Bible
cannot be mistaken, but we can be mistaken about the Bible. The meaning of
the Bible does not change, but our understanding of its meaning does.

Human beings are finite, and finite beings make mistakes. That is why there
are erasers on pencils, correcting fluid for typing, and a "delete" key on
computers. And even though God's Word is perfect (Ps. 19:7), as long as
imperfect human beings exist, there will be misinterpretations of God's Word
and false views about His world. In view of this, one should not be hasty in
assuming that a currently dominant view in science is the final word on the
topic. Prevailing views of science in the past are considered errors by
scientists in the present. So, contradictions between popular opinions in
science and widely accepted interpretations of the Bible can be expected.
But this falls short of proving there is a real contradiction between God's
world and God's Word, between God's general revelation and His special
revelation. In this basic sense, science and Scripture are not
contradictory. Only finite, fallible human opinions about each can be
contradictory.

Mistake 4: Failing to Understand the Context of the Passage.
Perhaps the most common mistake of critics is to take a text out of its
proper context. As the adage goes, "A text out of context is a pretext." One
can prove anything from the Bible by this mistaken procedure. The Bible says
"there is no God" (Ps. 14:1). Of course, the context is that "The fool has
said in his heart, `There is no God' " (Ps. 14:1). One may claim that Jesus
admonished us "not to resist an evil" (Matt. 5:39), but the anti-retaliatory
context in which He cast this statement must not be ignored. Likewise, many
fail to understand the context of Jesus' statement to "Give to him who asks
you," as though one had an obligation to give a gun to a small child who
asked, or nuclear weapons to Saddam Hussein just because he asked. Failure
to note that meaning is determined by context is perhaps the chief sin of
those who find fault with the Bible, as comments on numerous passages in
this book will illustrate.

Mistake 5: Neglecting to Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear
Ones.
Some passages of Scripture are hard to understand. Sometimes the difficulty
is due to their obscurity. At other times, the difficulty is because
passages appear to be teaching something contrary to what some other part of
Scripture is clearly teaching. For example, James appears to be saying
salvation is by works (James 2:14-26), whereas Paul taught clearly that it
was by grace (Rom. 4:5; Titus 3:5-7; Eph. 2:8-9). In this case, James should
not be construed so as to contradict Paul. Paul is speaking about
justification before God (which is by faith alone), whereas James is
referring to justification before men (who cannot see our faith, but only
our works).

Another example is found in Philippians 2:12 where Paul says, "work out your
own salvation with fear and trembling." On the surface this appears to be
saying salvation is by works. However, this is flatly contradicted by a host
of Scriptures which clearly affirm that we are "saved by grace through
faith, and that not of ourselves; it is a gift of God, not of works, lest
anyone should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). And, "to him who does not work but
believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for
righteousness" (Rom. 4:5). Also, it "is not by works of righteousness which
we have done, but according to His mercy [that] He saved us" (Titus 3:5-6).
When this difficult statement about "working out our salvation" is
understood in the light of these clear passages, we can see that, whatever
it does mean, it does not mean that we are saved by works. In fact, what it
means is found in the very next verse. We are to work salvation out because
God's grace has worked it in our hearts. In Paul's words, "for it is God who
works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

Mistake 6: Basing a Teaching on an Obscure Passage.
Some passages in the Bible are difficult because their meanings are obscure.
This is usually because a key word in the text is used only once (or
rarely), and so it is difficult to know what the author is saying, unless it
can be inferred from the context. For example, one of the best known
passages in the Bible contains a word that appears nowhere else in all
existing Greek literature up to the time the NT was written. This word
appears in what is popularly known as the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:11). It is
usually translated, "Give us this day our daily bread." The word in question
is the one translated "daily"-epiousion. Experts in Greek still have not
come to any agreement either on its origin, or on its precise meaning.
Different commentators try to establish links with Greek words that are
well-known, and many suggestions have been proposed as to the resulting
meaning. Among these suggestions are:

Give us this day our continuous bread.

Give us this day our supersubstantial (indicating supernatural, from heaven)
bread.

Give us this day bread for our sustenance.

Give us this day our daily (or, what we need for today) bread.

Each one of these proposals has its defenders, each one makes sense in the
context, and each one is a possibility based on the limited information that
is available. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to depart from
what has become the generally accepted translation, but this example does
serve to illustrate the point. Some passages of the Bible are difficult to
understand because the meaning of some key word appears only once, or very
rarely.

At other times, the words may be clear but the meaning is not evident
because we are not sure to what they refer. This is true in 1 Corinthians
15:29 where Paul speaks of those who were "baptized for the dead." Is he
referring to the baptizing of live representatives to ensure salvation for
dead believers who were not baptized (as Mormons claim)? Or, is he referring
to others being baptized into the church to fill the ranks of those who have
passed on? Or, is he referring to a believer being baptized "for" (i.e.,
"with a view to") his own death and burial with Christ? Or, to something
else?

When we are not sure, then several things should be kept in mind. First, we
should not build a doctrine on an obscure passage. The rule of thumb in
Bible interpretation is "the main things are the plain things, and the plain
things are the main things." This is called the perspicuity (clearness) of
Scripture. If something is important, it will be clearly taught in Scripture
and probably in more than one place. Second, when a given passage is not
clear, we should never conclude that it means something that is opposed to
another plain teaching of Scripture. God does not make mistakes in His Word;
we make mistakes in trying to understand it.

Mistake 7: Forgetting that the Bible Is a Human Book with Human
Characteristics.
With the exception of small sections, like the Ten Commandments which were
"written with the finger of God" (Ex. 31:18), the Bible was not verbally
dictated.7 The writers were not secretaries of the Holy Spirit. They were
human composers employing their own literary styles and idiosyncrasies.
These human authors sometimes used human sources for their material (Josh.
10:13; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12). In fact, every book of the
Bible is the composition of a human writer-about forty of them in all. The
Bible also manifests different human literary styles, from the mournful
meter of Lamentations to the exalted poetry of Isaiah; from the simple
grammar of John to the complex Greek of the Book of Hebrews. Scripture also
manifests human perspectives. David spoke in Psalm 23 from a shepherd's
perspective. Kings is written from a prophetic vantage point, and Chronicles
from a priestly point of view. Acts manifests an historical interest and 2
Timothy a pastor's heart. Writers speak from an observer's standpoint when
they write of the sun rising or setting (Josh. 1:15). They also reveal human
thought patterns, including memory lapses (1 Cor. 1:14-16), as well as human
emotions (Gal. 4:14). The Bible discloses specific human interests. For
example, Hosea possessed a rural interest, Luke a medical concern, and James
a love of nature.8 But like Christ, the Bible is completely human, yet
without error. Forgetting the humanity of Scripture can lead to falsely
impugning its integrity by expecting a level of expression higher than that
which is customary to a human document. This will become more obvious as we
discuss the next mistakes of the critics.

Mistake 8: Assuming that a Partial Report is a False Report.
Critics often jump to the conclusion that a partial report is false.
However, this is not so. If it were, most of what has ever been said would
be false, since seldom does time or space permit an absolutely complete
report. Occasionally the Bible expresses the same thing in different ways,
or at least from different viewpoints, at different times. Hence,
inspiration does not exclude a diversity of expression. The four Gospels
relate the same story in different ways to different groups of people, and
sometimes even quote the same saying with different words. Compare, for
example, Peter's famous confession in the Gospels:

Matthew: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (16:16).

Mark: "You are the Christ" (8:29).

Luke: "The Christ of God" (9:20).

Even the Ten Commandments, which were "written with the finger of God"
(Deut. 9:10), are stated with variations the second time God gave them (cf.
Ex. 20:8-11 with Deut. 5:12-15). There are many differences between the
books of Kings and Chronicles in their description of identical events, yet
they harbor no contradiction in the events they narrate. If such important
utterances can be stated in different ways, then there is no reason the rest
of Scripture cannot speak truth without employing a wooden literalness of
expression.

Mistake 9: Demanding that NT Citations of the OT Always Be Exact Quotations.
Critics often point to variations in the NT's use of the OT Scriptures as a
proof of error. However, they forget that every citation need not be an
exact quotation. It was then (and still is today) a perfectly acceptable
literary style to give the essence of a statement without using precisely
the same words. The same meaning can be conveyed without using the same
verbal expressions.

Variations in the NT citations of the OT fall into different categories.
Sometimes they vary because there is a change of speaker. For example,
Zechariah records the Lord as saying, "they will look on Me whom they have
pierced" (12:10). When this is cited in the NT, John, not God, is speaking.
So it is changed to "They shall look on Him whom they pierced" (John 19:37).

At other times, writers cite only part of the OT text. Jesus did this at His
home synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:18-19, citing Isa. 61:1-2). In fact, He
stopped in the middle of a sentence. Had He gone any farther, He could not
have said as He did, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing" (v.
21). For the very next phrase, "And the day of vengeance of our God," is a
reference to His second coming.

Sometimes the NT paraphrases or summarizes the OT text (e.g., Matt. 2:6).
Others blend two texts into one (Matt. 27:9-10). Occasionally a general
truth is mentioned, without citing a specific text. For example, Matthew
said Jesus moved to Nazareth "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
the prophets, `He shall be called a Nazarene' " (Matt. 2:23). Notice,
Matthew quotes no given prophet, but rather "prophets" in general. So it
would be futile to insist on a specific OT text where this could be found.

There are also instances where the NT applies a text in a different way than
the OT did. For example, Hosea applies "Out of Egypt have I called My Son"
to the Messianic nation, and Matthew applies it to the product of that
nation, the Messiah (Matt. 2:15, from Hos. 11:1). In no case, however, does
the NT misinterpret or misapply the OT, nor draw some implication from it
that is not validly drawn from it. In short, the NT makes no mistakes in
citing the OT, as the critics do in citing the NT.

Mistake 10: Assuming that Divergent Accounts Are False Ones.
Just because two or more accounts of the same event differ, it does not mean
they are mutually exclusive. For example, Matthew (28:5) says there was one
angel at the tomb after the resurrection, whereas John informs us there were
two (20:12). But, these are not contradictory reports. In fact, there is an
infallible mathematical rule that easily explains this problem: wherever
there are two, there is always one-it never fails! Matthew did not say there
was only one angel. One has to add the word "only" to Matthew's account to
make it contradict John's. But if the critic comes to the Bible in order to
show it errs, then the error is not in the Bible, but in the critic.

Likewise, Matthew (27:5) informs us that Judas hanged himself. But Luke says
that "he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out" (Acts
1:18). Once more, these accounts differ, but they are not mutually
exclusive. If Judas hanged himself on a tree over the edge of a cliff and
his body fell on sharp rocks below, then his entrails would gush out just as
Luke vividly describes.

Mistake 11: Presuming that the Bible Approves of All it Records.
It is a mistake to assume that everything contained in the Bible is
commended by the Bible. The whole Bible is true (John 17:17), but it records
some lies, for example, Satan's (Gen. 3:4; cf. John 8:44) and Rahab's (Josh.
2:4). Inspiration encompasses the Bible fully and completely in the sense
that it records accurately and truthfully even the lies and errors of sinful
beings. The truth of Scripture is found in what the Bible reveals, not in
everything it records. Unless this distinction is held, it may be
incorrectly concluded that the Bible teaches immorality because it narrates
David's sin (2 Sam. 11:4), that it promotes polygamy because it records
Solomon's (1 Kings 11:3), or that it affirms atheism because it quotes the
fool as saying "there is no God" (Ps. 14:1).

Mistake 12: Forgetting that the Bible Uses Non-technical, Everyday Language.
To be true, something does not have to use scholarly, technical, or
so-called "scientific" language. The Bible is written for the common person
of every generation, and it therefore uses common, everyday language. The
use of observational, nonscientific language is not unscientific, it is
merely prescientific. The Scriptures were written in ancient times by
ancient standards, and it would be anachronistic to superimpose modern
scientific standards upon them. However, it is no more unscientific to speak
of the sun "standing still" (Joshua 10:12) than to refer to the sun "rising"
(Joshua 1:16). Contemporary meteorologists still speak daily of the time of
"sunrise" and "sunset."

Mistake 13: Assuming that Round Numbers Are False.
Another mistake sometimes made by Bible critics is claiming that round
numbers are false. This is not so. Round numbers are just that-round
numbers. Like most ordinary speech, the Bible uses round numbers (1 Chron.
19:18; 21:5). For example, it refers to the diameter as being about one
third of the circumference of something. It may be imprecise from the
standpoint of a contemporary technological society to speak of 3.14159265 .
as the number three, but it is not incorrect for an ancient,
non-technological people. Three and fourteen hundredths can be rounded off
to three. That is sufficient for a "Sea of cast metal" (2 Chron. 4:2, niv)
in an ancient Hebrew temple, even though it would not suffice for a computer
in a modern rocket. But one should not expect scientific precision in a
prescientific age. In fact, it would be as anachronistic as wearing a wrist
watch in a Shakespearian play.

Mistake 14: Neglecting to Note that the Bible Uses Different Literary
Devices.
An inspired book need not be composed in one, and only one, literary style.
Human beings wrote every book in the Bible, and human language is not
limited to one mode of expression. So, there is no reason to suppose that
only one style or literary genre was used in a divinely inspired Book. The
Bible reveals a number of literary devices. Several whole books are written
in poetic style (e.g., Job, Psalms, Proverbs). The synoptic Gospels are
filled with parables. In Galatians 4, Paul utilizes an allegory. The NT
abounds with metaphors (e.g., 2 Cor. 3:2-3; James 3:6) and similes (cf.
Matt. 20:1; James 1:6); hyperboles may also be found (e.g., Col. 1:23; John
21:25; 2 Cor. 3:2), and possibly even poetic figures (Job 41:1). Jesus
employed satire (Matt. 19:24 with 23:24) and figures of speech are common
throughout the Bible.

It is not a mistake for a biblical writer to use a figure of speech, but it
is a mistake for a reader to take a figure of speech literally. Obviously
when the Bible speaks of the believer resting under the shadow of God's
"wings" (Ps. 36:7), it does not mean that God is a feathered bird. Likewise,
when the Bible says God "awakes" (Ps. 44:23), as though He were sleeping, it
is a figure of speech indicating God's inactivity before He is aroused to
judgment by man's sin. We must be careful in our reading of figures of
speech in Scripture.

Mistake 15: Forgetting that Only the Original Text, Not Every Copy of
Scripture, Is without Error.
When critics do come upon a genuine mistake in a manuscript copy, they make
another fatal error-they assume it was in the original inspired text of
Scripture. They forget that God only uttered the original text of Scripture,
not the copies. Therefore, only the original text is without error.
Inspiration does not guarantee that every copy of the original is without
error. Therefore, we are to expect that minor errors are to be found in
manuscript copies. But, again, as St. Augustine wisely noted, when we run
into a so-called "error" in the Bible, we must assume one of two
things-either the manuscript was not copied correctly, or we have not
understood it rightly. What we may not assume is that God made an error in
inspiring the original text.

While present copies of Scripture are very good, they are not without error.
For example, 2 Kings 8:26 gives the age of king Ahaziah as twenty-two,
whereas 2 Chronicles 22:2 says forty-two. The later number cannot be
correct, or he would have been older than his father. This is obviously a
copyist error, but it does not alter the inerrancy of the original (see
Appendix 2 for further examples).

Several things should be observed about these copyist errors. First of all,
they are errors in the copies, not the originals. No one has ever found an
original manuscript with an error in it. Second, they are minor errors
(often in names or numbers) which do not affect any doctrine of the
Christian faith. Third, these copyist errors are relatively few in number,
as will be illustrated throughout the rest of this book. Fourth, usually by
the context, or by another Scripture, we know which one is in error. For
example, Ahaziah (above) must have been twenty-two, not forty-two, since he
could not be older than his father. Finally, even though there is a copyist
error, the entire message can still come through. In such a case, the
validity of the message is not changed. For example, if you received a
letter like this, would you understand the whole message? And would you
collect your money?

"#OU HAVE WON THE FIVE MILLION DOLLAR
READER'S DIGEST SWEEPSTAKES."

Even though there is a mistake in the first word, the entire message comes
through-you are five million dollars richer! And if you received another
letter the next day that read like this, you would be even more sure:

"Y#U HAVE WON THE FIVE MILLION DOLLAR
READER'S DIGEST SWEEPSTAKES."

Actually the more mistakes of this kind there are (each in a different
place), the more sure you are of the original message. This is why scribal
mistakes in the biblical manuscripts do not affect the basic message of the
Bible. So, for all practical purposes, the Bible in our hand, imperfect
though the manuscripts are, conveys the complete truth of the original Word
of God.

Mistake 16: Confusing General Statements with Universal Ones.
Critics often jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit of no
exceptions. They seize upon verses that offer general truths and then point
with glee to obvious exceptions. In so doing, they forget that such
statements are only intended to be generalizations.

The Book of Proverbs is a good example of such an issue. Proverbial sayings
by their very nature offer only general guidance, not universal assurance.
They are rules for life, but rules that admit of exceptions. Proverbs 16:7
is a case in point. It affirms that "when a man's ways please the Lord, He
makes even his enemies to be at peace with him." This obviously was not
intended to be a universal truth. Paul was pleasing to the Lord and his
enemies stoned him (Acts 14:19). Jesus was pleasing the Lord, and His
enemies crucified Him! Nonetheless, it is a general truth that one who acts
in a way pleasing to God can minimize his enemies' antagonism.

Another example of a general truth is Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in
the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it."
However, other Scripture passages and experience show that this is not
always true. Indeed, some godly persons in the Bible (including Job, Eli,
and David) had some very wayward children. This proverb does not contradict
experience because it is a general principle that applies in a general way,
but allows for individual exceptions. Proverbs are not designed to be
absolute guarantees. Rather, they express truths that provide helpful advice
and guidance by which an individual should conduct his or her daily life.

It is simply a mistake to assume that proverbial wisdom is always
universally true. Proverbs are wisdom (general guides), not law (universally
binding imperatives). When the Bible declares "You shall therefore be holy,
for I am holy" (Lev. 11:45), then there are no exceptions. Holiness,
goodness, love, truth, and justice are rooted in the very nature of an
unchanging God and therefore admit of no exceptions. But wisdom takes God's
universal truths and applies them to specific and changing circumstances
which, by their very nature as changing, will not always yield the same
results. Nonetheless, they are still helpful guides for life, even though
they may admit of an occasional exception.

Mistake 17: Forgetting that Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation.
Sometimes critics of Scripture forget the principle of progressive
revelation. God does not reveal everything at once, nor does He always lay
down the same conditions for every period of time. Therefore, some of His
later revelation will supersede His former statements. Bible critics
sometimes confuse a change of revelation with a mistake. The mistake,
however, is that of the critic. For example, the fact that a parent allows a
very small child to eat with his fingers, only to tell them later to use a
spoon, is not a contradiction. Nor is the parent contradicting himself to
insist later that the child should use a fork, not a spoon, to eat his
vegetables. This is progressive revelation, with each command suited to fit
the particular circumstance in which a person is found.

There was a time when God tested the human race by forbidding them to eat of
a specific tree in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:16-17). This command is no
longer in effect, but the later revelation does not contradict this former
revelation. Also, there was a period (under the Mosaic law) when God
commanded that animals be sacrificed for people's sin. However, since Christ
offered the perfect sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:11-14), this OT command is no
longer in effect. Here again, there is no contradiction between the latter
and the former commands. Likewise, when God created the human race, He
commanded that they eat only fruit and vegetables (Gen. 1:29). But later,
when conditions changed after the flood, God commanded that they also eat
meat (Gen. 9:3). This change from herbivorous to omnivorous status is
progressive revelation, but it is not a contradiction. In fact, all these
subsequent revelations were simply different commands for different people
at different times in God's overall plan of redemption.

Of course, God cannot change commands that have to do with His unchangeable
nature (cf. Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:18). For example, since God is love (1 John
4:16), He cannot command that we hate Him. Nor can He command what is
logically impossible, for example, to both offer and not offer a sacrifice
for sin at the same time and in the same sense. But these moral and logical
limits notwithstanding, God can and has given noncontradictory, progressive
revelation which, if taken out of its proper context and juxtaposed with
each other, can be made to look contradictory. This, however, is just as
much a mistake as to assume the parent is contradicting herself when she
allows a child to stay up later at night as he gets older.

After forty years of continual and careful study of the Bible, one can only
conclude that those who think they have discovered a mistake in the Bible do
not know too much about the Bible-they know too little about it! This does
not mean, of course, that we understand all the difficulties in the
Scriptures. But it does lead us to believe that Mark Twain was correct when
he concluded that it was not the part of the Bible he did not understand
that bothered him the most, but the parts he did understand!

Footnotes:
1 For a more complete discussion, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix,
A General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1986), chapters 3-6.
2 See ibid., chapters 1-11.
3 For a defense of the inerrancy of the Bible by a coalition of evangelical
scholars, see Norman L. Geisler ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1979).
4 For further discussion of this, see Norman L. Geisler, "The Concept of
Truth in the Inerrancy Debate" in Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct-Dec, 1980).
5 This is the mistake of G.C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975) and Jack Rogers, Biblical Authority (Waco, TX: Word, 1978).
Defining error as what misleads, rather than what is mistaken, they make all
sincere errors unfalsifiable.
6 St. Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 11.5 in Philip Schaff, A
Select Library of the Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), vol. 4.
7 For a proponent of verbal dictation see John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed
Book-The Bible (Murfeesboro, Tenn: Sword of the Lord, 1969).
8 The biblical authors include a lawgiver (Moses), a general (Joshua),
prophets (Samuel, Isaiah, et. al.), kings (David and Solomon), a musician
(Asaph), a herdsman (Amos), a prince and statesman (Daniel), a priest
(Ezra), a tax collector (Matthew), a physician (Luke), a scholar (Paul), and
fishermen (Peter and John). With such a variety of occupations represented
by biblical writers, it is only natural that their personal interests and
differences should be reflected in their writings.