~Home~ ~Life Lines~ ~Study Surveys~ ~Bibliology~ ~Tracts & Articles~ ~Our Printed Materials~

In addition to the charges that it is unscientific or full of myths, another very popular reason many people give for rejecting the inspiration of the Scriptures is, "It contradicts itself." The word for self-contradiction is "discrepancy." When there is a discrepancy in a person’s testimony, for instance, it means he is inconsistent, saying one thing in one place and something else in another. Closely related to this though not the same is the charge that the Bible is full of errors of various kinds. A discrepancy is a self-contradiction whereas an error would be a mistake or something incorrect as compared with another or outside standard. Infidels have long taken this approach in attacking the Scriptures—publishing lists in pamphlets and books of supposed contradictions and errors in the Bible. It is true that if the Bible did contradict itself or contain errors of any kind, it could not be viewed as the inspired Word of God, at least in the traditional sense in which we have defined it, for two propositions opposite to each other cannot logically both be true, neither could God make mistakes. If it contains contradictions and errors, the Bible must be, as its critics have long claimed, only the word of man, not the Word of God.

In one sense we have already been dealing with the claim that the Bible contains errors in our other subsections under "Objections to the Doctrine of Inspiration." The objection from science includes many attempts to show the Bible is in error concerning facts of science, but we have showed this is not the case. Some objections arise from evolution, and it is true that the Bible account of creation contradicts evolution, but we showed that evolution is not true. Other objections arise from Bible references to the sun moving across the sky (or standing still in the case of Joshua) or rising or going down, but this is merely phenomenological language, a description of apparent phenomena, the way things look or appear. We use the same language today regarding the sun even though we know it is the earth that rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. And so it is with the references to the "four corners of the earth." This is poetic language that we still use today and is not meant to be a declaration that the earth is square or flat. Also in our section on miracles, which is only another form of the objection from science, we showed that miracles are not unscientific but beyond the scope of science and certainly within the capacity of God to perform. We looked at the objection from myths and saw that the Bible has very little in common with them. We also looked at the claims of higher criticism, usually denials that certain Bible books were written by the author who claims to have written them or that they were written in the times the Bible says they were. All of these are objections claiming that the Bible contains errors or discrepancies in some form.

There are three main sources one might say for charges of errors and discrepancies in the Bible. First, they have been pointed out and advanced by infidels in all ages in their attacks upon the Bible and the church. A second major source has been the liberal higher critical movement. And, third, in more recent times, the past 30 years or so, in the debate on inerrancy that has been raging among evangelicals, apparent errors and discrepancies have been the chief objection to inerrancy of those who deny it. Some evangelicals, those who argue against inerrancy as it has traditionally been set forth, acknowledge that the Bible contains "insignificant" errors in numbers, dates, historical and scientific facts, etc., but is still the Word of God in the sense that it is trustworthy concerning morals and spiritual things. But those who maintain inerrancy rightly point out that no errors in the Bible, whatever their nature, if it contained them, could be called insignificant, for it would mean that we would always have to wonder which part is accurate and true and which is not. Besides, if the Bible were slightly in error concerning natural facts, how could we be certain it was infallible concerning moral, spiritual, or theological matters? Must not these also be supplemented by man’s understanding of these things as he sees them and "progresses" in his thought?

Gleason Archer writes:

"If there were genuine mistakes of any sort in the original manuscripts, it would mean, obviously, that the Bible contains error along with truth. As such it would become subject to human judgment, just like any other religious document....The charge of scriptural self-contradiction or factual error is to be taken quite seriously; it cannot be brushed off as a matter of minor consequence. At stake is the credibility and reliability of the Bible as authentic revelation from God. In a court of law, particularly in a criminal case, the trustworthiness of a witness is of prime importance. The cross-examining attorney will make every effort to prove that the witness cannot be believed, that he is not a truthful person. The attorney may put various kinds of questions to the witness in an endeavor to trip him up in a discrepancy, thus showing the jury that in one statement or the other the witness must be lying or confused. Even though the discrepancy may pertain to a matter not directly germane to the case, the jury’s confidence in the witness’s general credibility is necessarily shaken, and they may reasonably reject his testimony relating to other, more important matters. It is in this way that antisupernaturalists and rationalists attack the Bible’s overall trustworthiness, by attempting to show that Scripture contains various discrepancies and contradictions and demonstrable errors in matters of history and science. If they are honest and careful, they are as justified in this procedure as is the lawyer cross-examining a witness. For this reason there is no such thing as an inconsequential scriptural error. If any part of the Bible can be proved to be in error, then any other part of it—including the doctrinal, theological parts—may also be in error. We are referring here, of course, to the original manuscripts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; we make no such claim concerning later copies of those manuscripts....A Bible containing mistakes in its original manuscripts is a combination of truth and error and is therefore in the same class as the religious scriptures composed by pagan authors as expressions of their own search after God. As such, it must be subjected to the judicial processes of human reason, and in the effort to sift out the valid from the false, any human judge—whoever he may be—is necessarily influenced by subjective factors. All he can be sure of is his own opinion—and even that may change from year to year. At best he comes up with conjectures and guesswork, which he may try to dignify with the label of sanctified intuition or something of the sort. But he has no truly reliable, objective basis for knowledge of the one true God or of His will for our salvation or way of living....To many of us there is a far greater prospect of reliability and security in the inerrancy of the Word of God itself than in the judgments of it by finite, sinful man." (Inerrancy, Norman L. Geisler, ed.; Academie Books, Zondervan: Grand Rapids,MI; 1980, chapter 3, "Alleged Errors and Discrepancies in the Original Manuscripts of the Bible," pp. 59,60,81)

It would be impossible in our article to answer every instance of alleged discrepancies and errors in the Bible. What we propose to do, then, is present some principles that would be helpful in finding resolutions. Then we will simply list many difficulties without giving a solution. First, let us offer some general observations concerning the whole subject from several prominent authors. Most commentaries address the apparent discrepancies and errors in the Bible in order as they appear in the text of whatever book they comment upon. In addition, there are three major books (along with other more minor ones) that address the subject—An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (1874) by John W. Haley, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982) by Gleason L. Archer, and When Critics Ask (1992) by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. Each of these offer solutions to hundreds of apparent errors and contradictions, almost all of them set forth by infidels or critics of inerrancy.

John W. Haley writes:

"That no candid and intelligent student of the Bible will deny that it contains numerous ‘discrepancies,’ that its statements, taken prima facie, not infrequently conflict with or contradict one another, may safely by presumed. This fact has been more or less recognized by Christian scholars in all ages. Of the early writers, Origen declares that if any one should carefully examine the Gospels in respect to their historic agreement, he would grow dizzy-headed, and, attaching himself to one of them, he would desist from the attempt to establish all as true, or else he would regard the four as true, yet not in their external forms. Chrysostom regards the discrepancies as really valuable as proofs of independence on the part of the sacred writers. Augustine often recurs, in his writings, to the discrepancies, and handles many cases with great skill and felicity. Some twenty-five years since, that eminent biblical critic, Moses Stuart, whose candor was commensurate with his erudition, acknowledged that ‘in our present copies of the scriptures there are some discrepancies between different portions of them, which no learning nor ingenuity can reconcile.’ To much the same effect, Archbishop Whately observes: ‘That the apparent contradictions of scripture are numerous—that the instruction conveyed by them, if they be indeed designed for such purpose, is furnished in abundance—is too notorious to need being much insisted on.’ Similarly says Dr. Charles Hodge: ‘It would require not a volume, but volumes, to discuss all the cases of alleged discrepancies.’ Such being the concession made by Christian scholars, it can occasion no surprise to find skeptical authors expatiating upon the ‘glaring inconsistencies,’ ‘self-contradictions,’ and ‘manifest discrepancies’ of the Bible, and incessantly urging these as so many proofs of its untrustworthiness and of its merely human origin. The pages of the German rationalists, and of their English and American disciples and copyists, abound with arguments of this character. Of the importance of our theme, little need be said. Clearly it bears a close and vital relation to the doctrine of inspiration. God, who is wisdom and truth, can neither lie nor contradict himself. Hence, should it be discovered that falsehoods or actual contradictions exist in the Bible, our conclusion must be, that, at any rate, these things do not come from God; that so far the Bible is not divinely inspired. We see, therefore, the need of a patient and impartial examination of alleged falsehoods and contradictions, in order that our theory of inspiration may be made to conform to the facts of the case....Some persons may, perchance, question the wisdom of publishing a work in which the difficulties of scripture are brought together and set forth so plainly. They may think it better to suppress, as far as may be, the knowledge of these things. The author does not sympathize with any such timid policy. He counts it the duty of the Christian scholar to look difficulties and objections squarely in the face. Nothing is to be gained by overlooking, evading, or shrinking from them. Truth has no cause to fear scrutiny, however rigid and searching. Besides, the enemies of the Bible will not be silent, even if its friends should hold their peace. It should be remembered that the following ‘discrepancies’ are not now published for the first time. They are gathered from books and pamphlets which are already extensively circulated. The poison demands an antidote. The remedy should be carried wherever the disease has made its blighting way." (An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W. Haley; Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI; 1977 reprint of 1881, preface)

Along the same lines, Kenneth S. Kantzer, in the Foreword to Dr. Archer’s book mentioned above, writes:

"The attempt, like Dr. Archer’s, to show that there are no mistakes or false statements in the Bible is frequently objected to from opposite viewpoints. One asks, ‘Why bother to defend the Bible? You do not need to defend a roaring lion from a mouse.’...But the faith of some troubled souls is hindered by misunderstanding the Scripture. They are confused by what seems to them to be false statements or self-contradiction. We need, therefore, to clear away such false obstacles to faith. If there remains any obstacle to faith, it should be the stumbling block of the cross or the cost of discipleship rather than an imaginary obstacle that could easily be eliminated. In spite of what we sometimes hear, God never asks us to crucify our intellects in order to believe. A second objection...comes from the opposite position that it is not worthwhile to do so because it is perfectly obvious that the Bible is full of errors....Karl Barth, for example, declares that the Bible shouts from the housetop that it is a human book and that an essential part of its humanity is to err. Others hold that the Bible is a book God inspired in order to give us religious truth but not precise facts of science and history. To waste time defending the Bible in these latter areas is to do it a disservice, they say. It diverts attention away from the real purpose of the Bible, which is rather to instruct us in spiritual and moral matters. A variant of this position is that the purpose of the Bible is to lead us to the personal truth of Christ. The Bible may be wrong on many points, but it points to the Savior; and to focus attention on points of geography, history, astronomy, and biology is only to divert it from its true goal—personal faith in Christ. Of course, there are also others who hold that the Bible is full of errors because its authors were simply children of their times." [Gleason Archer adds on p. 23,] "If the Biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer; Zondervan: Grand Rapids,MI; 1982, p.8)

Besides the three major books that contain many resolutions of apparent difficulties, R.A. Torrey wrote a smaller book with fewer cases called Difficulties in the Bible. The first three chapters are so excellent that I would like to more or less transcribe them:

"Who of us has not found things in the Bible that have puzzled us, yes, that in our early Christian experience have led us to question whether the Bible was, after all, the Word of God? We find some things in the Bible which it seems impossible to reconcile with other things in the Bible. We find some things which seem incompatible with the thought that the whole Bible is of divine origin and absolutely inerrant. It is not wise to attempt to conceal the fact that these difficulties exist. It is the part of wisdom, as well as of honesty, to frankly face them and consider them. What shall we say concerning these difficulties that every thoughtful student will sooner or later encounter? The first thing we have to say about these difficulties in the Bible is that from the very nature of the case difficulties are to be expected. Some people are surprised and staggered because there are difficulties in the Bible. For my part, I would be more surprised and staggered if there were not. What is the Bible? It is a revelation of the mind and will and character and being of an infinitely great, perfectly wise and absolutely Holy God. God Himself is the Author of this revelation. But to whom is the revelation made? To men, to finite beings who are imperfect in intellectual development and consequently in knowledge, and who are also imperfect in character and consequently in spiritual discernment. The wisest man measured on the scale of eternity is only a babe, and the holiest man compared with God is only an infant in moral development. There must, then, from the very necessities of the case, be difficulties in such a revelation from such a source made to such persons. When the finite try to understand the infinite, there is bound to be difficulty. When the ignorant contemplate the utterances of one perfect in knowledge, there must be many things hard to be understood, and some things which to their immature and inaccurate minds appear absurd. When beings whose moral judgments as to the hatefulness of sin and as to the awfulness of the penalty that it demands, listen to the demands of an absolutely holy Being, they are bound to be staggered at some of His demands; and when they consider His dealings, they are bound to be staggered at some of His dealings. These dealings will appear too severe, too stern, too harsh. It is plain that there must be difficulties for us in such a revelation as the Bible has proved to be. If someone should hand me a book that was as simple to me as the multiplication table, and say, ‘This is the Word of God; in it He has revealed His whole will and wisdom,’ I should shake my head and say, ‘I cannot believe it; that is too easy to be a perfect revelation of infinite wisdom.’ There must be in any complete revelation of God's mind and will and character and being, things hard for the beginner to understand; and the wisest and best of us are but beginners. The second thing to be said about these difficulties is that a difficulty in a doctrine, or a grave objection to a doctrine, does not in any way prove the doctrine to be untrue. Many people think that it does. If they come across some difficulty in the way of believing in the divine origin and absolute inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, they at once conclude that the doctrine is exploded. That is very illogical. They should stop a moment and think, and learn to be reasonable and fair. There is scarcely a doctrine in science generally believed today, that has not had some great difficulty in the way of its acceptance. When the Copernican theory, now so universally accepted, was first proclaimed, it encountered a very grave difficulty. If this theory were true, the planet Venus should have phases as the moon has, but no phases could be discovered by the best glass then in existence. But the positive argument for the theory was so strong that it was accepted in spite of this apparently unanswerable objection. When a more powerful glass was made, it was found that Venus had phases after all. The whole difficulty arose, as most all of those in the Bible arise, from man's ignorance of some of the facts in the case....If we apply to Bible study the commonsense logic recognized in every department of science (with the exception of Biblical criticism, if that be a science), then we must demand that if the positive proof of a theory is conclusive, it must be believed by rational men in spite of any number of difficulties in minor details. He is a shallow thinker who gives up a well-attested truth because there are some apparent facts which he cannot reconcile with that truth. And he is a very shallow Bible scholar who gives up his belief in the divine origin and inerrancy of the Bible because there are some supposed facts that he cannot reconcile with that doctrine. There are in the theological world today many shallow thinkers of that kind. The third thing to be said about the difficulties in the Bible is that there are many more, and much greater, difficulties in the way of the doctrine that holds the Bible to be of human origin, and hence fallible, than there are in the way of the doctrine that holds the Bible to be of divine origin, and hence infallible. Oftentimes a man will put forth some difficulty and say, ‘How do you explain that, if the Bible is the Word of God?’ You may not be able to answer him satisfactorily. Then he thinks he has you cornered. Not at all. Turn on him, and ask him, ‘How do you account for the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible if it is of human origin? How do you account for the marvelous unity of the Book? How do you account for its inexhaustible depth? How do you account for its unique power in lifting men up to God?’ For every insignificant objection he can bring to your view of the Bible, you can bring very many more deeply significant objections to his view of the Bible. And any really candid man who desires to know and obey the truth will have no difficulty in deciding between the two views. Some time ago a young man, who was of a bright mind and unusually well read in skeptical and critical and agnostic literature, told me he had given the matter a great deal of candid and careful thought, and as a result he could not believe the Bible was of divine origin. I asked him, ‘Why not?’ He pointed to a certain teaching of the Bible that he could not and would not believe to be true. I replied, ‘Suppose for a moment that I could not answer that specific difficulty; that would not prove that the Bible is not of divine origin. I can bring you many things far more difficult to account for on the hypothesis that the Bible is not of divine origin than on the hypothesis that the Bible is of divine origin. You cannot deny the fact of fulfilled prophecy. How do you account for it if the Bible is not God's Word? You cannot shut your eyes to the marvelous unity of the sixty-six books of the Bible, written under such divergent circumstances and at periods of time so remote from one another. How do you account for it if God is not the real Author of the Book back of the forty or more human authors? You cannot deny that the Bible has a power to save men from sin, to bring men peace and hope and joy, to lift men to God—that all other books taken together do not possess. How do you account for it if the Bible is not the Word of God in a sense that no other book is the Word of God?’ The objector did not answer. The difficulties that confront one who denies that the Bible is of divine origin and authority are far more numerous and vastly more weighty than those which confront the one who believes it to be of divine origin and authority. The fourth thing to be said about the difficulties in the Bible is: the fact that you cannot solve a difficulty does not prove it cannot be solved, and the fact that you cannot answer an objection does not prove at all that it cannot be answered. It is remarkable how often we overlook this very evident fact. There are many who, when they meet a difficulty in the Bible and give it a little thought and can see no possible solution, at once jump at the conclusion that a solution is impossible, and so they give up their faith in the inerrancy of the Bible and in its divine origin. Any man should have a sufficient amount of modesty, being so limited in knowledge, to say, ‘Though I see no possible solution to this difficulty, someone a little wiser than I might easily find one.’ If we would only bear in mind that we do not know everything, and there are a great many things that we cannot solve now which we could very easily solve if we only knew a little more, it would save us from all this folly. We ought never to forget that there may be a very easy solution to infinite wisdom even for that which to our finite wisdom—or ignorance—appears absolutely insoluble. What would we think of a beginner in algebra who, having tried in vain for half an hour to solve a difficult problem, declared that there was no possible solution to the problem because he could find none! A man of unusual experience and ability one day left his work and came a long distance to see me in great perturbation of spirit because he had discovered what seemed to him a flat contradiction in the Bible. He had lain awake all night thinking about it. It had defied all his attempts at reconciliation, but when he had fully stated the case to me, in a very few moments I showed him a very simple and satisfactory solution of the difficulty. He went away with a happy heart. But why had it not occurred to him at the outset that though it appeared absolutely impossible to him to find a solution, after all a solution might be easily discovered by someone else? He supposed that the difficulty was an entirely new one, but it was one that had been faced and answered long before either he or I was born. The fifth thing to be said about the difficulties in the Bible is that the seeming defects of the Book are exceedingly insignificant when put in comparison with its many and marvelous excellencies.

It certainly reveals great perversity of both mind and heart that men spend so much time expatiating on such insignificant points which they consider defects in the Bible, and pass absolutely unnoticed the incomparable beauties and wonders that adorn and glorify almost every page. Even in some prominent institutions of learning, where men are supposed to be taught to appreciate and understand the Bible and where they are sent to be trained to preach its truth to others, much more time is spent on minute and insignificant points that seem to point toward an entirely human origin of the Bible than is spent upon studying and understanding and admiring the unparalleled glories that make this Book stand apart from all other books in the world. What would we think of any man who in studying some great masterpiece of art concentrated his whole attention upon what looked like a flyspeck in the corner? A large proportion of the much vaunted ‘critical study of the Bible’ is a laborious and scholarly investigation of supposed flyspecks. The man who is not willing to squander the major portion of his time in this erudite investigation of flyspecks but prefers to devote it to the study of the unrivaled beauties and majestic splendors of the Book is counted in some quarters as not being ‘scholarly and up to date.’ The sixth thing to be said about the difficulties in the Bible is that they have far more weight with superficial readers than with profound students. Take a man like Colonel Ingersoll, who was totally ignorant of the real contents and meaning of the Bible, or that class of modern preachers who read the Bible for the most part for the sole purpose of finding texts to serve as pegs to hang their own ideas upon. To such superficial readers of the Bible these difficulties seem of immense importance, but to the one who has learned to meditate upon the Word of God day and night they have scarcely any weight at all. That rare man of God, George Muller, who had carefully studied the Bible from beginning to end more than one hundred times, was not disturbed by any difficulties be encountered; but to the man who is reading it through for the first or second time there are many things that perplex and stagger. The seventh thing to be said about the difficulties in the Bible is that they rapidly disappear upon careful and prayerful study. How many things there are in the Bible that once puzzled and staggered us, but which have since been perfectly cleared up and no longer present any difficulty whatever! Every year of study finds these difficulties disappear more and more rapidly. At first they go by ones, and then by twos, and then by dozens, and then by scores. Is it not reasonable then to suppose that the difficulties that still remain will all disappear upon further study?" (Difficulties in the Bible, R.A. Torrey; Moody Press, Chicago; n.d., pp.9-17)

In each of the books on the subject, the authors, before citing specific cases of difficulties, discuss from what causes they arise. Without calling them this, these causes could be used as principles, which if observed, would clear most of the difficulties. We will start with these by returning first to Torrey’s opening chapters, then go on to Haley’s. Torrey writes:

"All the difficulties found in the Bible can be included under ten general headings: 1. The text from which our English Bible was translated. No one, as far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given. We do not possess the original manuscripts of the Bible. These original manuscripts were copied many times with great care and exactness, but naturally some errors crept into the copies that were made. We now possess so many good copies that by comparing one with another, we can tell with great precision just what the original text was. Indeed, for all practical purposes the original text is now settled. There is not one important doctrine that hangs upon any doubtful reading of the text. But when our Authorized Version was made, some of the best manuscripts were not within reach of the translators, and the science of textual criticism was not so well understood as it is today, and so the translation was made from an imperfect text. Not a few of the apparent difficulties in the Bible arise from this source. [For example, John 5:4 which says ‘an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had’ seems improbable and difficult to believe, but upon investigation we find that...a late copyist embodied this verse from a marginal note in the body of the text.] The discrepancies in figures in different accounts of the same events as, for example, the differences in the ages of some of the kings as given in the text of Kings and Chronicles, doubtless arise from the same cause, errors of copyists. Such an error in the matter of figures would be very easy to make, as in the Hebrew, numbers are denoted by letters, and letters that appear very much alike have a very different value as figures. For example, the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet denotes one, and with two little points above it, not larger than flyspecks, it denotes a thousand. The twenty-third or last letter of the Hebrew alphabet denotes four hundred, but the eighth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, that looks very much like it and could be easily mistaken for it, denotes eight. A very slight error of the copyist would therefore make an utter change in figures. The remarkable thing when one contemplates the facts in the case is that so few errors of this kind have been made. 2. Inaccurate translations. For example, in Matthew 12:40 Jonah is spoken of as being in ‘the whale's belly.’ [This has often been ridiculed by skeptics because the construction of a whale’s throat will not admit this. But] the word translated ‘whale’ really means ‘sea monster,’ without any definition as to the character of the sea monster....So the whole difficulty arose from the translator's mistake and the skeptic's ignorance. There are many skeptics today who are so densely ignorant of matters clearly understood by many Sunday school children that they are still harping in the name of scholarship on this supposed error in the Bible. 3. False interpretations of the Bible. What the Bible teaches is one thing, and what men interpret it to mean is oftentimes something widely different. Many difficulties that we have with the Bible arise not from what the Bible actually says, but from what men interpret it to mean....4. A wrong conception of the Bible. Many think that when you say the Bible is the Word of God, of divine origin and authority, you mean that God is the speaker in every utterance it contains; but this is not at all what is meant. Oftentimes it simply records what others say—what good men say, what bad men say, what inspired men say, what uninspired men say, what angels and demons say, and even what the devil says. The record of what they said is from God and absolutely true, but what those other persons are recorded as saying may be true or may not be true. It is true that they said it, but what they said may not be true. For example, the devil is recorded in Genesis 3:4 as saying, ‘Ye shall not surely die.’ It is true that the devil said it, but what the devil said is not true, but an infamous lie that shipwrecked our race. That the devil said it is God's Word, but what the devil said is not God's word but the devil's word. It is God's word that this was the devil's word. Very many careless readers of the Bible do not notice who is talking—God, good men, bad men, inspired men, uninspired men, angels or devil. They will tear a verse right out of its context regardless of the speaker and say, ‘There, God said that.’ But God said nothing of the kind. God's Word says that the devil said it, or a bad man said it, or a good man said it, or an inspired man said it, or an uninspired man said it, or an angel said it. What God says is true, namely, that the devil said it, or a bad man, or a good man, or an inspired man, or an uninspired man, or an angel. But what they said may or may not be true. It is very common to hear men quote what Eliphaz, Bildad or Zophar said to job as if it were necessarily God's own words because it is recorded in the Bible, in spite of the fact that God disavowed their teaching and said to them, ‘Ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right’ (Job 42:7). It is true that these men said the thing that God records them as saying, but often they gave the truth a twist and said what is not right. A very large share of our difficulties thus arises from not noticing who is speaking. The Bible always tells us, and we should always note it. In the Psalms we have sometimes what God said to man, and that is always true; but on the other band, we often have what man said to God, and that may or may not be true. Sometimes, and far oftener than most of us see, it is the voice of the speaker's personal vengeance or despair. This vengeance may be and often is prophetic, but it may be the wronged man committing his cause to Him to whom vengeance belongs (Romans 12:19), and we are not obliged to defend all that he said. In the Psalms we have even a record of what the fool said: ‘There is no God’ (Psalm 14:1). Now it is true that the fool said it, but the fool lied when he said it. It is God's Word that the fool said it, but what God reports the fool as saying is not God's own word at all but the fool's own word. So in studying our Bible, if God is the speaker we must believe what He says. If an inspired man is the speaker we must believe what he says. If an uninspired man is the speaker we must judge for ourselves—it is perhaps true, perhaps false. If it is the devil who is speaking, we do well to remember that he was a liar from the beginning; but even the devil may tell the truth sometimes. 5. The language in which the Bible was written. The Bible is a book of all ages and for all kinds of people, and therefore it was written in the language that continues the same and is understood by all, the language of the common people and of appearances. It was not written in the terminology of science. Thus, for example, what occurred at the Battle of Gibeon (Joshua 10:12-14) was described in the way it appeared to those who saw it, and the way in which it would be understood by those who read about it. There is no talk about the refraction of the sun's rays, and so forth, but the sun is said to have 'stood still' (or tarried) in the midst of heaven. It is one of the perfections of the Bible that it was not written in the terminology of modern science. If it had been, it would never have been understood until the present day, and even now it would be understood only by a few. Furthermore, as science and its terminology are constantly changing, the Bible if written in the terminology of the science of today would be out of date in a few years; but being written in just the language chosen, it has proved the Book for all ages, all lands and all conditions of men. Other difficulties from the language in which the Bible was written arise from the fact that large portions of the Bible are poetical and are written in the language of poetry, the language of feeling, passion, imagination and figure. Now if a man is hopelessly prosaic, he will inevitably find difficulties with these poetical portions of the inspired Word. For example, in Psalm 18 we have a marvelous description of a thunderstorm, but let the dull, prosaic fellow get hold of that, for example, verse 8: ‘There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it,’ and he will be head over heels in difficulty at once. But the trouble is not with the Bible, but with his own stupid, thickheaded prosaicness. 6. Our defective knowledge of the history, geography and usages of Bible times. For example, in Acts 13:7 Luke speaks of ‘the deputy’ (more accurately ‘the proconsul,’ see Revised Version) of Cyprus. Roman provinces were of two classes, imperial and senatorial. The ruler of the imperial provinces was called a propraetor, of a senatorial province a proconsul. Up to a comparatively recent date, according to the best information we had, Cyprus was an imperial province and therefore its ruler would be a propraetor, but Luke calls him a proconsul. This certainly seemed like a clear case of error on Luke's part, and even the conservative commentators felt forced to admit that Luke was in slight error, and the destructive critics were delighted to find this ‘mistake.’ But further and more thorough investigation has brought to light the fact that just at the time of which Luke wrote the senate had made an exchange with the emperor whereby Cyprus had become a senatorial province, and therefore its ruler was a proconsul. Luke was right after all, and the literary critics were themselves in error. Time and again further researches and discoveries, geographical, historical and archaeological, have vindicated the Bible and put to shame its critics. For example, the book of Daniel has naturally been one of the books that infidels and destructive critics have most hated. One of their strongest arguments against its authenticity and veracity was that such a person as Belshazzar was unknown to history, and that all historians agreed that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon, and that be was absent from the city when it was captured; so Belshazzar must be a purely mythical character, and the whole story legendary and non historical. Their argument seemed very strong. In fact, it seemed unanswerable. But Sir H. Rawlinson discovered at Mugheir and other Chaldean sites clay cylinders on which Belshazzar (Belsaruzur) is named by Nabonidus as his eldest son. Doubtless he reigned as regent in the city during his father's absence, an indication of which we have in his proposal to make Daniel third ruler in the kingdom (Daniel 5:16). He himself being second ruler in the kingdom, Daniel would be next to him. So the Bible was vindicated again. The critics asserted most positively that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because writing was unknown in his day. But recent discoveries have proved beyond a question that writing far antedates the time of Moses. So the critics have been compelled to give up their argument, though they have had the bad grace to hold on stubbornly to their conclusion. 7. The ignorance of conditions under which books were written and commands given. For example, to one ignorant of the conditions, God's commands to Israel as to the extermination of the Canaanites seem cruel and horrible, but when one understands the moral condition to which these nations had sunk, the utter hopelessness of reclaiming them, and the weakness of the Israelites themselves, their extermination seems to have been an act of mercy to all succeeding generations and to themselves....8. The many-sidedness of the Bible. The broadest-minded man is one-sided, but the truth is many-sided, and the Bible is all-sided. So to our narrow thought one part of the Bible seems to contradict another. For example, religious men as a rule are either Calvinistic or Arminian in their mental makeup. And some portions of the Bible are decidedly Calvinistic and present great difficulties to the Arminian type of mind, while other portions are decidedly Arminian and present difficulties to the Calvinistic type of mind. But both sides are true. Many men in our day are broad-minded enough to be able to grasp at the same time the Calvinistic side of the truth and the Arminian side of the truth; but some are not, so the Bible perplexes, puzzles and bewilders them. The trouble is not with the Bible, but with their own lack of capacity for comprehensive thought. So Paul seems to contradict James, and James seems sometimes to contradict Paul; and what Paul says in one place seems to contradict what he says in another place. But the whole trouble is that our narrow minds cannot take in God's large truth. 9. The fact that the Bible has to do with the infinite, and our minds are finite. It is necessarily difficult to put the facts of infinite being into the limited capacity of our finite intelligence, just as it is difficult to put the ocean into a pint cup. To this class of difficulties belong those connected with the Bible doctrines of the Trinity and of the divine-human nature of Christ. To those who forget that God is infinite, the doctrine of the Trinity seems like the mathematical monstrosity of making one equal three. But when one bears in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt to put into forms of finite thought the fact of infinite being, and into material forms of expression the facts of the spirit, the difficulties vanish. The simplicity of the Unitarian conception of God arises from its shallowness. 10. The dullness of our spiritual perception. The man who is farthest advanced spiritually is still so immature that he cannot expect to see everything yet as an absolutely holy God sees it, unless he takes it upon simple faith in Him. To this class of difficulties belong those connected with the Bible doctrine of eternal punishment. It often seems to us as if this doctrine cannot be true, must not be true, but the whole difficulty arises from the fact that we are still so blind spiritually that we have no adequate conception of the awfulness of sin, and especially of the awfulness of the sin of rejecting the infinitely glorious Son of God. But when we become so holy, so like God, that we see the enormity of sin as He sees it, we shall have no difficulty with the doctrine of eternal punishment. As we look back over the ten classes of difficulties, we see they all arise from our imperfection, and not from the imperfection of the Bible. The Bible is perfect, but we, being imperfect, have difficulty with it. As we grow more and more into the perfection of God, our difficulties grow ever less and less, and so we are forced to conclude that when we become as perfect as God is, we shall have no more difficulties whatever with the Bible." (Torrey, op.cit., pp.17-25)

In his three introductory chapters before dealing with specific cases of alleged errors, John W. Haley offers some thoughts on the "Origin" and "Design of the Discrepancies." Concerning "Origin" he writes:

An important preliminary question relates to the Origin of the Discrepancies. To what causes are they to be referred?...1. Many of [them] are obviously attributable to a difference in the dates of the discordant passages. Nothing is more common than that a description or statement, true and pertinent at one time, should at a later period, and in a different state of affairs, be found irrelevant or inaccurate....We find some of the patriarchs represented as good men, yet occasionally practicing deceit, polygamy, and other sins which are discountenanced in the later books of the Bible....In the comparatively unenlightened times in which many of the OT saints lived, many faults and errors of theirs may have been mercifully and wisely passed by. Those ‘times of ignorance’ God ‘winked at’ (Acts 17:30)—’over-looked.’...Nothing could be more unjust or unreasonable than to try the patriarchs by the ethical standard of a later age....Now, since our virtue must be judged of in relations to the amount of knowledge we possess, it is easy to see how men are styled ‘good’ who live according to the light they have, even though that light may be comparatively feeble. Therefore, previous to pronouncing upon the moral character of a man or an act, we must take into consideration the date of the act, or the time when the man lived, that we may judge the man or the act by the proper standard. This simple principle will remove many otherwise formidable difficulties. 2. ...[D]ifferences of authorship [is] a fruitful source of discrepancies. We find recorded in the Bible the words of God and of good men, as well as some of the sayings of Satan and of wicked men....The question of the respective authorship of conflicting texts is an important one: ‘Whose are these sayings?’ ‘Are they recorded as inspired language, or is one or more of them inserted as a mere matter of history?’ ‘Does the sacred writer endorse, or merely narrate, these statements?’ The answer to these simple questions will often be the only solution which the supposed discrepancy needs. With regards to utterances clearly referable to inspired sources, yet which apparently disagree, several things are to be noticed: 1) The same idea, in substance, may be couched in several different forms of phraseology....2) Inspiration does not destroy the individuality of the writers...allowing [them], generally, to clothe [his ideas] in his own language....On this principle we account for the marked difference of style among the sacred writers, as well as for their occasional divergences in setting forth the same idea or in relating the same circumstance. 3) Inspiration need not always tread its own track....A writer may, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, take the language of a former inspired author, and modify it to suit his own purpose. Thus the NT writers often quote those of the Old. They grasp the sense...of their predecessors, and then mould that thought into such forms as shall best meet the needs of the later age for which they write. This simple principle relieves the apparent discrepancies between the phraseology of the OT and

the citations in the New. 3. Other seeming disagreements are occasioned by differences of stand-point or of object on the part of the respective authors. Truth may be many-sided, flinging back from each of its countless facets a ray of different hue....Often, in looking from different positions, or at different objects, we follow lines of thought, or employ language, which seems inconsistent with something elsewhere propounded by us; yet there may be no real inconsistency in the case. Thus we say, in the same breath, ‘Man is mortal,’ and ‘Man is immortal.’ Both statements are true, each from its own point of view....In respect to his material, visible, tangible organism, he is mortal; but with reference to the deathless, intelligent spirit within, he is immortal....In the "Christian Paradoxes,’ published in Basil Montagu’s edition of Lord Bacon’s Works, we find striking contrarieties. Thus, concerning the pious man: ‘He is one that fears always, yet is as bold as a lion. He loseth his life, and gains by it; and whilst he loseth it, he saveth it. He is a peacemaker, yet is a continual fighter, and is an irreconcilable enemy. He is often in prison, yet always at liberty; a freeman, though a servant. He loves not honor amongst men, yet highly prizeth a good name.’...The principle that every truth presents different aspects, and bears different relations, is one of great importance....Says Muller: ‘The great majority of readers transfer without hesitation the ideas which they connect with words as used in the nineteenth century to the mind of Moses or his contemporaries, forgetting altogether the distance which divides their language and their thoughts from the thoughts and language of the wandering tribes of Israel.’...We may remark, further, that the historian’s stand-point is theoretically a neutral one. So long as he keeps to the mere recital of facts, he does not make himself responsible in any degree for the conduct described by him....In a word, the Bible writers do not, by simply narrating the misconduct of other persons, make themselves in the slightest degree responsible for that misconduct....There is an appreciable difference between narrating and endorsing an act. 4. Many other apparent discrepancies, of a historical character, are occasioned by the adoption, by the several authors, of different principles and methods of arrangement. One writer follows the strict chronological order; another disposes his materials according to the principle of association of ideas. One writes history minutely and consecutively; another omits, condenses, or expands to suit his purpose. From the pen of one writer we receive an orderly, well-constructed biography; another gives us merely a series of anecdotes, grouped so as to illustrate some trait, sentiment, or habit of the person described....So our first Gospel, in the words of Professor Stowe, ‘does not follow any chronological series of events or instructions, but groups together things of the same kind, and shows by a series of living pictures what Christ was in all the various circumstances through which he passed.’ A similar and intentional disregard of chronological order and sequence is seen, to a greater or less degree, in the three remaining Gospels, and in other historical portions of the Bible. The methods of the several authors being thus different, it cannot but be that their narratives, when compared, will present appearances of dislocation, deficiency,redundancy, anachronism, or even antagonism—one or all of these....If we require them to narrate precisely the same events, in precisely the same order, and with precisely the same fullness or brevity, we do them great violence and injustice. We should let each follow his own method of arrangement, and tell his story in his own way. A different grouping of events does not necessarily bring one author into collision with another, unless it can be shown that both writers intended to follow the order of time. Nor is an author’s omission of an event equivalent to a denial of that event....5. Other incongruities arise from the use of different modes of computation, particularly of reckoning time....Many ancient and several modern nations have two kinds of year in use, the civil and the sacred. The Jews employed both reckonings. ‘The sacred reckoning was that instituted at the exodus, according to which the first month was Abib; by the civil reckoning the first month was the seventh. The interval between the two commencements was thus exactly half a year’ [R.S. Poole in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, ‘Year’]. ‘The ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, Persians, Syrians [etc.] each began the year at the autumnal equinox, about September 22. The Jews also began their civil year at that time; but in their ecclesiastical reckoning the year dated from the vernal equinox, about March 22.’ ‘Among the Latin Christian nations there were seven different dates for the commencement of the year’ [Appleton’s Cyclopaedia, ‘Calendar’]....Even among us, the academic and the fiscal do not begin and end with the civil year. It follows, therefore, that when two ancient writers fail to agree as to the month and day of a given event, we must inquire whether or not they employ the same chronological reckoning. If not, their disagreement furnishes no proof that either is wrong. Each, according to his own method of computation, may be perfectly correct....It was one peculiarity of the Jewish reckoning that fractional years were counted for whole ones. Lightfoot says that, according to the rabbins, ‘the very first day of a year may stand in computation for that year.’ Aben Ezra, on Lev. 12:3, says that, ‘if an infant were born in the last hour of the day, such hour was counted for one whole day.’ A similar mode of reckoning prevails in the East at the present time....That eminent scholar and Egyptologist, Dr. J.P. Thompson, well observes that the study of chronology is ‘particularly obscure and difficult when we have to do with Oriental modes of computation, which are essentially different from ours. Before the time of Abraham, the narrative given in the book of Genesis may be a condensed epitome of foregoing history—not a consecutive line of historical events, year by year and generation by generation, but a condensed epitome of what had occurred in the world from the creation to that time; for if you will scrutinize it carefully, you will see that in some instances the names of individuals are put for tribes, dynasties, and nations, and that it is no part of the object of the historian to give the consecutive course of affairs in the world at large.’...It is clear that the Hebrews often employed ‘round numbers,’ or, omitting fractions, made use of the nearest whole number....When the sacred writers disagree as to numbers and dates, unless there is evidence that they intended to reckon from the same point and by the same method, the verdict must be: ‘Discrepancy not proven.’...6. The peculiarities of the Oriental idiom are another prolific source of discrepancies. The people of the East are fervid and impassioned in their modes of thought and expression. They think and speak in poetry. Bold metaphors and startling hyperboles abound in their writings and conversation....7. Other dissonances in scripture are obviously attributable to the Eastern custom of applying a plurality of names to the person or object....Thus, in Arabic, there are 1000 different words or names for ‘sword,’ 500 for ‘lion,’ 200 for ‘serpent,’ 400 for ‘misfortune,’ 80 for ‘honey.’ The Hebrew language has as many as fifty words denoting a body of water of some kind....eighteen...to express different kinds of prickly shrubs or weeds....eight...for ‘counsel,’ twelve for ‘darkness,’ thirty-two for ‘destruction,’ ten for ‘law,’ and twenty-three for ‘wealth.’ The usage in respect to proper names is quite similar....Jacob and Israel, Edom and Esau, Gideon and Jerubbaal, Hoshea or Oshea and Jehoshua or Joshua. One of the apostles bore the following appellations: Simon, Simeon, Peter, Cephas, Simon Peter, Simon Bar-jona, and Simon son of Jonas. So we find Joseph, Barsabas, and Justus designating the same individual. Not infrequently the names of persons and places were changed on account of some important event....Often, in the Bible, the name of the head of a tribe or nation is put for his posterity....’Israel’...’Ephraim’...’Moab’.... 8. Not a few verbal contradictions arise from the use of the same word with different, sometimes opposite, significations....According to [Fuerst] and Gesenius, the Hebrew word ‘barak’ is used in the opposite senses of to bless and to curse....’yarash’ means both to possess and to dispossess; ‘nakar,’ to know and not to know; ‘saqal,’ to pelt with stones and to free from stones; ‘shabar,’ to buy grain and to sell grain....Frequent discrepancies appear in our version, when none exist in the original. This is due to the fact that the same English word has been employed by the translators to represent several original terms....It is well to remember, also, that in King James’s version words are frequently employed in an unusual or obsolete sense....9. A very large number of discrepancies take their rise from errors in the manuscripts; these errors being occasioned by the similarity of the alphabetical characters to one another, and by the consequent blunders of transcribers....’Several letters,’ says Professor Stuart [Hebrew Grammar], ‘bear a great resemblance to each other.’ As illustrations, he mentions Beth and Kaph; Daleth and Resh; Daleth and final Kaph; Vav and Yod; Vav and Nun final; Heth and He; Heth and Tav. He might have added, Pe and Kaph . The reader will observe that, if the left hand perpendicular line of He be accidently omitted or blurred, we have Daleth left, thus, , ; so Tav and Resh, thus, , ; also Pe and Kaph, , . ‘At one time,’ says Herbert Marsh, ‘the whole difference consists in the acuteness or obtuseness of an angle; at other times, either on the length or the straightness of a line; distinctions so minute that even when the letters are perfect, mistakes will sometimes happen, and still more frequently when they are inaccurately formed, or are partially effaced. In fact, this is one of the most fruitful sources of error in the Hebrew manuscripts.’ Certain Greek letters, also, look very much alike; for example, Nu and Upsilon , with others....We are now ready to add that, in the ancient Hebrew, letters were, in all probability, used for numerals....Rawlinson observes: ‘Nothing in ancient MSS. is so liable to corruption from the mistakes of copyists as the numbers’....[Winer:] ‘From the confounding of similarly-shaped letters when used for numerals, and from the subsequent writing out of the same in words can be explained satisfactorily in part the enormous sums in the OT books, and the contradictions in their statements of numbers; yet caution is herein necessary.’...It hardly need be added that errors as to names have arisen in the same way....The key thus furnished, will unlock many difficulties....10. Multitudes of alleged discrepancies are the product of the imagination of the critic, influenced to a greater or less degree by dogmatic prejudice....A favorite exegetical principle adopted by some of these critics appears to be, that similar events are necessarily identical. Hence, when they read that Abraham twice equivocated concerning his wife; that Isaac imitated his example; that David was twice in peril in a certain wilderness, and twice spared Saul’s life in a cave, they instantly assume that in each case these double narratives are irreconcilable accounts of one and the same event. The absurdity of such a canon of criticism is obvious from the fact that history is full of events which more or less closely resemble one another. Take, as a well-known example, the case of the two Presidents Edwards, father and son. Both were named Jonathan Edwards, and were the grandsons of clergymen. ‘Both were pious in their youth, were distinguished scholars, and were tutors for equal periods in the colleges where they were respectively educated. Both were settled in the ministry as successors to their maternal grandfathers, were dismissed on account of their religious opinions, and were again settled in retired country towns, over congregations singularly attached to them, where they had leisure to pursue their favorite studies, and to prepare and publish their valuable works. Both were removed from these stations to become presidents of colleges, and both died shortly after their respective inaugurations; the one in the fifty-sixth, and the other in the fifty-seventh year of his age; each having preached, on the first Sabbath of the year of his death, on the text: "This year thou shalt die."’ Now, but let these circumstances be submitted for the consideration of rationalistic critics, and, the probable decision will be that there was but one Jonathan Edwards.... (Haley, op.cit., pp.1-27, emphases in original)

Geisler and Howe in the introduction to their book point out that problems are due, not to mistakes in the Bible, but in the its critics. They list 17 mistakes that men make:

"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.’ 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....

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....Likewise, the Christian scholar approaches the Bible with the same presumption that what is thus far unexplained is not therefore unexplainable....And, when he encounters something for which he has no explanation, he simply continues to do research, believing that one will eventually be found....
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....Negative critics of the Bible begin with just the opposite presumption....
Mistake 3: Confusing Our Fallible Interpretations with God's Infallible Revelation....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....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....
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....One can prove anything from the Bible by this mistaken procedure....Failure to note that meaning is determined by context is perhaps the chief sin of those who find fault with the Bible....
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....

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....At other times, the words may be clear but the meaning is not evident because we are not sure to what they refer....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.’...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. 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 (I 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. 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....
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....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....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....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....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)....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....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 (I 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 use of observational, nonscientific language is not unscientific, it is merely prescientific....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....This is not so. Round numbers are just that—round numbers. Like most ordinary speech, the Bible uses round numbers....
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....poetic (e.g., Job, Psalms, Proverbs).... parables....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....
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....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 generaliza-tions....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.... 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..." (When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe; Scripture Press, Victor Books: Wheaton,IL; 1992, pp. 15-27, emphases in original))

John W. Haley offers some very salient points in one of his introductory chapters by this title which are well worth noting:

"Why were the discrepancies permitted to exist? What good end do they contemplate? 1. They were doubtless intended as a stimulus to the human intellect, as provocative of mental effort....’No book, not nature itself, has ever waked up intellectual activity like the Bible....What book besides ever caused the writing of so many other books?...—those written to oppose, or defend, or elucidate it,—....The very multitude of infidel books is a witness to the power with which the Bible stimulates the intellect. Why do we not see the same amount of active intellect coming up, and dashing and roaring around the Koran? [President Hopkins, Evidences of Christianity] The discrepancies of the sacred volume have played no insignificant part in this incitement of mental action. Though but a subordinate characteristic, they have prompted men to ‘search the scriptures,’ and to ask: How are these difficulties to be resolved? Things which are ‘hard to be understood,’ present special attractions to the inquiring mind....Whately says: ‘The seeming contradictions in scripture are too numerous not to be the result of design; and doubtless were designed, not as mere difficulties to try our faith and patience, but as furnishing the most suitable mode of instruction that could have been devised, by mutually explaining and modifying or limiting or extending one another’s meaning.’...’Instructions thus conveyed are evidently more striking and more likely to arouse the attention; and also, from the very circumstance that they call for careful reflection, more likely to make a lasting impression.’ Again, illustrating, as beautifully as suggestively, by the case of the mariner who steers midway between certain landmarks, he adds: ‘Even thus, it will often happen that two apparently opposite passages of scripture may together enable us to direct our faith or our practice aright; one shall be calculated to guard us against certain errors on one side, and the other, on the other side; neither, taken alone, shall convey the exact and entire truth; but both taken in conjunction may enable us sufficiently to ascertain it.’ He also ingeniously compares the colliding texts to several mechanical forces or impulses, acting upon a body to be set in motion; their resultant impelling it in the direction required, though no one of the impulses, taken singly, is acting precisely in that direction....2. They were meant to be illustrative of the analogy between the Bible and nature, and so to evince their common origin....Let a man solve the grand problem of the ages; let him tell us why an infinitely wise, powerful, and benevolent Creator allowed evil to enter at all his universe—let him explain this contradiction, and we may safely engage to explain those which occur in the Bible. For none of them—not all together—are so dark, unfathomable, and appalling as this one grand, ultimate Discrepancy. Says Origen: ‘He who believes the scripture to have proceeded from him who is the Author of nature, may well expect to find the same sort of difficulties in it as are found in the constitution of nature.’ Bishop Butler pertinently adds, that ‘he who denies the scripture to have been from God, on account of these difficulties, may, for the very same reason, deny the world to have been formed by him.’...Dr. Charles Hodge [says]: ‘The universe teems with evidences of design, so manifold, so diverse, so wonderful as to overwhelm the mind with the conviction that it has had an intelligent author. Yet here and there isolated cases of monstrosity appear. It is irrational, because we cannot account for such cases, to deny that the universe is the product of intelligence. So the Christian need not renounce his faith in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, although there may be some things about it, in its present state, which he cannot account for.’...3. The disagreements of scripture were beyond question designed as a strong incidental proof that there was no collusion among the sacred writers. Their differences, go far to establish in this way, the credibility of these authors. The inspired writers exhibit ‘substantial agreement with circumstantial variation.’ This is precisely what a court of justice requires in respect of the testimony of witnesses. Should their evidence agree precisely in every word and syllable, this fact would be held by the court proof of conspiracy....Now, had the biblical writers agreed in all particulars, even the minutest, had there been no discrepancies in their testimony, the cry of ‘Collusion, Collusion!’ would have been passed along the whole infidel line, from Celsus and Porphyry down to Colenso and Renan. We maintain, therefore, that the very discrepancies, lying as they do upon the surface, without reaching the subject-matter, the kernel of scripture,—and being, moreover, capable of adjustment,—are so many proofs of its authenticity and credibility....4. The biblical discrepancies were plainly appointed as a test of moral character; and, probably, to serve an important judicial purpose....Hence, as Grotius has fitly said, the Gospel becomes a touch-stone to test the honesty of men’s dispositions. Our Saviour’s teachings were often clouded in forms which to the indifferent or prejudiced hearer must have seemed obscure, if not offensive. To the caviling skeptical Jews he spoke many things in parables, that seeing they might not perceive, and hearing they might hear and not understand [Mark 4:12]. When he said, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,’ he intentionally used such phraseology as would be repugnant to insincere and squeamish hearers. He thus tested and disclosed men’s characters and motives, and sifted out the chaff among his hearers. ‘From that time, many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.’ The seeming harshness and obscurity of his sayings served to rid him of those followers who were not of teachable spirit, and thoroughly in earnest, and who would not look beneath the surface. The indolent and superficial, the proud and fastidious, were discouraged and repelled by the rough husk in which the doctrinal kernel was encased. ...Those who are disposed to cavil do, in the wise arrangement of God, find opportunities [in apparent discrepancies] for caviling....Or, as Pascal has beautifully expressed it, God, ‘willing to be revealed to those who seek him with their whole heart, and hidden from those who as cordially fly from him, has so regulated the means of knowing him, as to give indications of himself, which are plain to those who seek him, and obscure to those who seek him not. There is light enough for those whose main wish is to see; there is darkness enough for those of an opposite disposition.’ That the difficulties of the Bible were intended, moreover, to serve as a penal end seems by no means improbable. Those persons who cherish a cavilling spirit, who are bent upon misapprehending the truth, and urging captious and frivolous objections, find in the inspired volume, difficulties and disagreements which would seem to have been designed as stumbling-stones for those which ‘stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed’ [1 Pet. 2:8]. Upon the willful votaries of error God sends ‘strong delusion, that they should believe a lie’ [2 Thess. 2:11], that they might work out their own condemnation and ruin....When the difficulties of scripture are approached with a docile and reverent mind, they may tend to our establishment in the faith; but, when they are dealt with in a querulous and disingenuous manner, they may become judicial agencies in linking to caviling skepticism its appropriate penalty—even to the loss of the soul." (Haley, op.cit., pp. 30-40, emphases in original)

R.A. Torrey writes:

"Before taking up those specific difficulties and alleged ‘contradictions’ in the Bible which have caused the most trouble to seekers after truth, let us first consider how difficulties should be dealt with: 1. Honestly. Whenever you find a difficulty in the Bible frankly acknowledge it. Don't try to obscure it. Don't try to dodge it. Look it square in the face. Admit it frankly to whoever mentions it. If you cannot give a good, square, honest explanation, do not attempt any at all. Untold harm has been done by those who in their zeal for the infallibility of the Bible have attempted explanations of difficulties which do not commend themselves to the honest, fair-minded man. People have concluded that if these are the best explanations, then there are really no explanations at all, and the Bible instead of being helped has been injured by the unintelligent zeal of foolish friends. If you are not really convinced that the Bible is the Word of God, you can far better afford to wait for an honest solution of a difficulty than you can afford to attempt a solution that is evasive and unsatisfactory. 2. Humbly. Recognize the limitations of your own mind and knowledge, and do not for a moment imagine that there is no solution just because you have found none. There is, in all probability, a very simple solution, even when you can find no solution at all. 3. Determinedly. Make up your mind that you will find the solution if you can by any amount of study and hard thinking. The difficulties of the Bible are our heavenly Father's challenge to us to set our brains to work. Do not give up searching for a solution because you cannot find one in five minutes or ten minutes. Ponder over it and work over it for days if necessary. The work will do you more good than the solution does. There is a solution somewhere, and you will find it if you will only search for it long enough and hard enough. 4. Fearlessly. Do not be frightened when you find a difficulty, no matter how unanswerable or how insurmountable it appears at first sight. Thousands of men have encountered just such difficulties, and still the old Book stands. The Bible that has stood eighteen centuries of rigid examination, and also of incessant and awful assault, is not likely to go down before your discoveries or before the discharges of any modern critical guns. To one who is at all familiar with the history of critical attacks on the Bible, the confidence of those modern critics who think they are going to annihilate the Bible at last is simply amusing. 5. Patiently. Do not be discouraged because you do not solve every problem in a day. If some difficulty persistently defies your very best efforts at a solution, lay it aside for a while. Later it will likely be resolved, and you will wonder how you were ever perplexed by it. 6. Scripturally. If you find a difficulty in one part of the Bible, look for another scripture to throw light upon it and dissolve it. Nothing explains scripture like scripture. Time and again people have come to me with some difficulty in the Bible that had greatly staggered them, and asked for a solution; and I have been able to give a solution by simply asking them to read some other chapter and verse, and the simple reading of that scripture has thrown such light upon the passage in question that all the mists have disappeared and the truth has shone as clear as day. 7. Prayerfully. It is simply wonderful how difficulties dissolve when one looks at them on his knees. Not only does God open our eyes in answer to prayer to behold wonderful things out of His law, but He also opens our eyes to look straight through a difficulty that seemed impenetrable before we prayed. One great reason why many modern Bible scholars have learned to be destructive critics is because they have forgotten how to pray." (Torrey, op.cit., pp. 26-28)

Gleason Archer in his book offers what he calls "Recommended Procedures in Dealing with Bible Difficulties":

"1. Be full persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it....2. Avoid the fallacy of shifting from one a priori to its opposite every time an apparent problem arises. The Bible is either the inerrant Word of God or else it is an imperfect record by fallible men. Once we have come into agreement with Jesus that the Scripture is completely trustworthy and authoritative, then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption, that the Bible is only the errant record of fallible men as they wrote about God. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, as Jesus said, then it must be treated with respect, trust, and complete obedience....When we are unable to understand God’s ways or are unable to comprehend His words, we must bow before Him in humility and patiently wait for Him to clear up the difficulty or to deliver us from our trials as He sees fit....3. Carefully study the context and framework of the verse in which the problem arises until you gain some idea of what the verse is intended to mean within its own setting. It may be necessary to study the entire book in which the verse occurs, carefully noting how each key term is used in other passages. Compare Scripture with Scripture, especially all those passages in other parts of the Bible that deal with the same subject or doctrine. 4. Remember, no interpretation of Scripture is valid that is not based on careful exegesis, that is, on wholehearted commitment to determining what the ancient author meant by the words he used. This is accomplished by a painstaking study of the key words, as defined in the dictionaries (Hebrew and Greek) and as used in parallel passages....Intuition or snap judgment may catch one up in a web of fallacy and subjective bias....5. In the case of parallel passages, the only method that can be justified is harmonization. That is to say, all the testimonies of the various witnesses are to be taken as trustworthy reports of what was said and done in their presence, even though they may have viewed the transaction from a slightly different perspective. When we sort them out, line them up, and put them together, we gain a fuller understanding of the event than we would obtain from any one testimony taken individually....6. Consult the best commentaries available, especially those written by Evangelical scholars who believe in the integrity of Scripture. A good 90 percent of the problems will be dealt with in good commentaries. Good Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias may clear up many perplexities. An analytical concordance will help establish word usage (e.g., Strong’s, Young’s). 7. Many Bible difficulties result from a minor error on the part of a copyist in the transmission of the text....8. Whenever historical accounts of the Bible are called in question on the basis of alleged disagreement with the findings of archaeology or the testimony of ancient non-Hebrew documents, always remember that the Bible is itself an archaeological document of the highest caliber. It is simply crass bias for critics to hold that whenever a pagan record disagrees with the biblical account, it must be the Hebrew author that was in error....(Archer, op.cit., pp. 15-17)

As we said at the outset, it would be impossible in our article to list the many hundreds of claimed discrepancies and errors in the Bible and give their solution. Instead, as we proposed, we have discussed at length many principles involved in resolving conflicts. Now we will take up the kinds or classes of discrepancies and errors and note examples of each. We will not be able to discuss the solutions to the examples, but be assured that since these were taken from the three major books on the subject plus Torrey’s book and another by Geisler, good solutions have been offered there and elsewhere for them all. It might be good exercise, however, to consider the difficulties yourself in the light of the principles we have alluded to and attempt your own resolution. Nevertheless, some of the cases will require outside help. If you should need help with a particular difficulty, I suggest you refer to the three volumes that deal with them. Haley has nearly 900 cases, Geisler and Howe over 800, and Archer nearly 300. Please keep in mind that the discrepancies and errors in this list are only alleged and that they are not necessarily a true report of what the verse references actually say.

Again, as we have said, the difficulties could be classified in several different ways under several different heads. We have chosen to divide them thus: Moral Difficulties, Doctrinal Difficulties, Historical Difficulties, Scientific Difficulties, Numbers, Names, Quotations, and Others, with sub-heads under most of these:

Moral Difficulties. By moral difficulties we mean those things that have to do with right and wrong. These come in both "discrepancies" (the Bible apparently contradicting itself) and "errors" (the Bible conflicting with some other standard of morality). Some of the main kinds with examples of each are:

Slavery. It is a very common moral objection to the Bible that it either condones or actually prescribes in some instances slavery, the ownership of human beings by others: Gen.9:25; 12:16; 16:1; 20:14; 21:10; 24:35; 26:19,25; 30:43; 32:5; Ex.21:2,6,7, 11, 16,20,21,26; 23:12; Lev.25:39-44,46; Deut.5:14; 15:12,13,17; 23:15; Josh. 9:23,27; 1 Sam.8:16; Ezra 2:65; Isaiah 14:2; Joel 3:8; Lk.7:2-8; 17:7-10; 1 Cor.7:20-24; Gal.3:28; Eph. 6:5; Col.3:22; 4:1; Phile.16; 1 Pet.2:18; but compare Acts 17:26; 1 Tim.1:10.

Polygamy. While the Bible condemns adultery (sexual relations with another’s spouse) and fornication (sexual relations between singles), in earlier Old Testament times polygamy (men having more than one wife) was permitted in some of the Bible’s most prominent characters: Gen.25:6 (Abraham); Gen.31:17 (Jacob); Deut.21:15; 31:17; 2 Sam.3:2-5; 12:7,8,24; 1 K.11:1-39 (Solomon). Forbidden or discouraged (directly or indirectly) in Prov.5:18,19; Mal.2:14,15; Mk.10:7-9; 1 Cor.7:2; Gen.2:18,24; 4:19; 16:3-5; 21:9,10; 30:1,8,14-16.

Mass destruction of cities, nations, etc., commanded or condoned. Deut.20:16-18 (Canaan-ites); Num. 31 (Midianites); Ex.12:29,30 (Egyptian firstborn for Pharoah’s hardness); Josh. 6:21 (Jerichoites); Josh.8:26 (Ai); Makedah (Josh.10:28); Hazor (Josh.11:11); 1 Sam.15:18 (Amalekites); 1 K.18:40 (prophets of Baal); 2 K.2:23,24 (children by bears for mocking Elisha); 2 K.9:7; 10:30; Hos.1:4 (house of Ahab); 14:3,7 (Edomites), cf. Dt.23:7;

Lying. Gen.12:10-20; 20:1-18 (Abraham); Gen.26:7-10 (Isaac); 31 (Jacob); 35:16-19 (Rachel, plus theft); Ex.1:19 (Hebrew midwives); Josh.2:4,5 (Rahab); 1 Sam.16:1,5; 20:5,6,21,22,27-29; 21:1,2, 10-13; 27:7-12 (David, Jonathan, Samuel); 1 K.22:19-23 (a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets); 2 K.6:19 (Elisha); Ezek.14:9 (God deceives false prophets); 2 Thess.2:11 (God sends delusion).

Forbidden marriages. Gen.4:16,17 (Adam’s sons); Gen.20:12; cf. 14:12,16 (Abraham and Sarah); Gen.19 (Lot’s daughters); Gen.29:12 (Jacob).

God the author of evil. 1 Sam.18:10 (evil spirit from the Lord on Saul); Ps.5:4; Isa.45:7; Jer.18:11; Lam.3:38; Ezek.20:25*; Amos 3:6. Compare Deut. 32:4; Ps.5:4; Jer.29:11; 1 Cor.14:33; 1 Jn.1:5. Does God tempt?—James 1:13; cf. Mt.6:13. God’s jealousy (Ex.20:5; 29:20; 34:14; Ps.78:58; Ezek.36:5; Nah.1:2), anger (Num.25:4; 32:13; Ps.85:5; Isa.26:20; Nah.1:2; Jer.4:8); and hatred (Lev.20:23; 26:30; Deut. 18:12; 22:5; Ps.5:5,6; 7:11; 11:5,6; 34:16; 106:39; Prov.3:32; 16:5; Jer.12:8; Hos.9:15; Mal.1:3;

Imprecatory Psalms. Many Psalms express the desire for vengeance upon enemies: Ps.35:4,6,8; 55:15; 58:6; 83:13-17; 109:6-10,12,13; 137:8,9; see also Ps.26:4,5; 31:6; 101:7; 119:53,113,115; 139:21,22; Neh.13:25; 1 Cor.16:22; Gal.1:8,9.

Intoxicating drink. Pro: Gen.14:18; 43:34; Dt.14:26; Judg.9:13; Ps.104:15; Prov.31:6,7; Hos.2:8; Joel 2:24; Isa.25:6; Zech.9:17; Mt.26:27-29; Mk.14:23; Lk.22:17-20; 1 Tim.5:23; used in sacrifices: Ex.29:40; Lev.23:13; Num.15:5,10; 18:12; 28:7,14; Dt.14:23. Jesus turned water into wine—Jn.2:9,10. Con: 1 Sam.1:12-16 (Hannah); Prov.20:1; 23:29-32; Isa.5:11,22; 24:9; 28:1,7; 56:12; Hos.4:11; Amos 6:6; Hab.2:5; Eph.5:18; 1 Tim.3:8; Tit.2:3. Forbidden to: Lev.10:9; Ezek.44:21 (Levites on duty); Num.6:3; Judg.13:4 (Nazirites); Prov.31:4 (kings); Lk.1:15 (John the Baptist); Jer.35:6,8,14,16 (Recabites); Rom.14:21. Instances of drunkenness: Gen.9:21 (Noah); 19:32 (Lot); 1 Sam.25:36 (Nabal); 2 Sam.13:28,29 (Ammon); Est.1:10 (Xerxes); Hos.7:5 (kings of Israel). See also Mt.11:19; Lk.7:34; Acts 2:13; 1 Cor.11:20-22.

Human sacrifice. Gen.22:2 (Abraham of Isaac); Judges 11:31,37-39 (Jephthah’s daughter). Forbid-den: Lev.18:21; 20:2.

Children put to death for their fathers’ sins. Gen.9:22,24,25; Josh.7:24-26; 2 Sam.12:15-18 (baby of David and Bathsheba); 2 Sam.21:5-9 (Saul’s 7 grandchildren). Prohibited: Deut.24:16; Ezek.18:4,20; Rom.2:5,6.

Murder. Judg.3:20-22 (Ehud of Eglon, king of Moab); Judg.4:17 (Jael of Sisera); 1 K.2:5-9 (Joab of Shimei).

Judging. Con: Mt.7:1,2; Lk.6:37; Rom.14:3,4,10-13; 1 Cor.4:3-5. Pro: Jn.7:24; 1 Cor.5:2-7,12,13; James 4:11.

Subjugation of women. Gen.3:16; 29:15-19; 34:12; Ex.20:17; 22:16,17; Num.30:2-15; 1 Sam. 18:17-27; 1 Cor.11:3-12; 14:34,35; Eph.5:22-24; Col.3:18; 1 Tim.2:11-15; Tit.2:4,5; 1 Pet.3:1-6. Compare Gen.1:26-28; 5:1,2; Judg.4:4 (Deborah); 2 K.22:14-20; Lk.2:36-38; Rom.16:1-3,7; Phil.4:3.

War. Gen.14:13-16 (Abraham); Ex.15:3 (God); Deut.20; Josh.5:13,14; 1 Sam.7:10-13; 15:1-3; 2 Sam.5:23-25; 22:35,38-43,48,49; 2 K.3:18,19; 1 Chr.5:22; 28:3; 2 Chr.6:34,35; Ps.24:8; 144:1; Lk.22:36. Compare Ps.46:9; Isa.2:4; Mic.4:3; Mt.5:9,38,39,43,44; 26:52; Jn.18:36; 2 Cor.10:4; 1 Tim.6:12; James 4:1,2; Rev.13:10.

Capital punishment. Gen.9:5,6; Num.35:16-35 (for murder); 18 other offenses. Compare Ex.20:13.

Divorce. Permitted: Deut.24:1-4; forbidden: Mt.5:31,32; 19:1-12; Mk.10:2-12; 1 Cor.7:10-16.

Others: God hardened Pharoah’s heart (Ex.4:21; 7:3; 14:4; cf. 9:12); Israelites’ plundering of the Egyptians (Ex.3:21,22; 12:35,36); God punished the Israelites for the quail He provided (Num.11:31-34); Balaam, permission granted (Num.22:20), then refused (22:21,22); God moved David to number Israel, then killed 70,000 people for it (2 Sam.24:1); did God command Hosea to marry a harlot? (Hos.1:2); putting away foreign wives and children (Ezra 10; Deut.7:1-4); the magi followed a star (Mt.2:2), yet astrology condemned (Lev.19:26; Deut.18:10; Isa.8:19); calling men "fools" forbidden (Mt.5:22), yet done (Mt.23:17; Lk.24:25; 1Cor.15:36; Gal.3:1); Jesus commended the unrighteous steward (Lk.16:1-14); commanded to hate family members (Lk.14:26; cf. Eph.5:25,33; 1 Jn.3:14,15);

Doctrinal Difficulties. Concerning God: visible (Ex.24:9-11; 33:18-33; Isa.6; Ezek.1:4-3:15; Rev.4:2-5) or invisible (Jn.1:18; Col.1:15; 1 Tim.1:17; 6:15,16; 1 Jn.4:12); immutable (Num.23:19; 1 Sam.15:29; Mal.3:6; James 1:17) but repents or changes His mind (Gen.6:6,7; Ex.32:14; Judg.2:18; 1 Sam.15:11; 2 Sam.24:16; Jer.26:19; Amos 7:3,6; Jon.3:10; Joel 2:13); God’s foreknowledge vs. man’s free will; omnipresence vs. localized appearances and places. Intermediate State. Conscious: Gen.37:35; 1 Sam. 28:15,17,19; 2 Sam.12:23; Job 14:22; 26:5; Ps.73:24; Isa.14:9,10; Lk.9:30,31; 16:22,23; 20:38; 2 Cor.5:6; Phil.1:21. Unconscious: Job 3:18; 10:21; 14:21; Ps.6:5; 88:11,12; 115:17; 146:4; Eccl.9:5,6, 9,10; Isa.38:18).

Images. Forbidden: Ex.20:4,5; Deut.4:23; 27:15; commanded: Ex.25:18,20,34; Num.21:8; 1 K.6:1-38; 7:13-51; 10:19,20.

Others: King offensive to God (1 Sam.8:5-9; 12:17), yet laid down rules earlier concerning (Deut.17:14,15); good works seen (Mt.5:16), not to be seen (Mt.6:1); does "another form" mean a different body? (Mk.16:12); circumcision: Paul opposed (Gal.5:1-12; 6:12,13), yet had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:1-3), see also 1 Cor.9:20; Acts 15:1; seven spirits of God, Rev.1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6;

Historical. Date of Exodus 480 years before Temple (1 K.6:1) cf. Ex.1:11; if 600,000 Israelites died in the desert, why are there no graves? (Num.14:29); David (1 Sam.17:50) or Elhanan (2 Sam.21:19) killed Goliath?; number years famine threatened, 7 (2 Sam.24:13), or 3 (1 Chr.21:11,12)?; Absalom, three sons (2 Sam.14:27) or none (18:18)?; size of Nineveh too large (Jonah 3:3); Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed Tyre (Ez.26:3-14) or not (29:18)?; last king of Babylon Belshazzar (Dan.5:1) or Nabonidus (history)?; worldwide census under Caesar Augustus, Quirinius unknown in history (Lk.2:1); order of temptations different (Mt.4:5-10 cf. Luke 4:5-12); Jesus said Abiathar high priest (Mk.2:26); Bethsaida in one place (Mk.6:32,45,53) or another (Lk.9:10-17); did Jesus promise to return during lifetime of disciples (Mt.10:23)?; three days and three nights in heart of earth (Mt.12:40) cf. Jn.19:14; "this generation shall not pass away" (Mt.24:34); last supper, day of Passover (Mk.14:12+; Lk.22:1; Mt.26:17) or before (Jn.13:1); Jesus crucified third hour (Mk.15:25) or sixth (Jn.19:14); Judas, hanged (Mt.27:5) or fell on rocks (Acts 1:18); Mary at tomb before sunrise (Jn.20:1) or after (Mk.16:2); did women tell of experience at tomb (Mt.28:8,9) or not (Mk.16:8); Saul’s attendants heard voice (Acts 9:7), did not (22:9; 26:14); Paul didn’t know high priest (Acts 23:5); from promises to Law, 430 years (Gal.3:17) or more?

Scientific. Sun rising, standing still, etc., hyrax and rabbit chewing cud (Lev.11:5,6); accused woman drinking bitter water, then swelling if guilty (Num.5:13-22); inaccurate value for pi (1 K.7:23); mustard seed not smallest in world (Mt.13:31,32).

Numbers. Animals by two’s in ark (Gen.6:19) or seven’s (Gen.7:2); 24,000 died (Num.25:9), 23,000 (1 Cor.10:8), or 3,000 (Ex.32:28), also Ex.32:6; age for Levitical service 30 (Num.4:3), 25 (Num.8:24), or 20 (Ezra 3:8)?; Benjamites slain, 26,100 (Judg. 20:15,47) or 25,000 (Judg.20:46,47)?; years of Saul’s reign (1 Sam.13:1); Jesse, eight sons (1 Sam.16:10) or seven (1 Chr.2:13-15)?; 50,000 died at Bethshemesh over ark (1 Sam.6:19)?; 1700 horsemen in battle (2 Sam.8:4) or 7000 (1 Chr.18:4)?; David slew 700 men (2 Sam.10:18) or 7,000 (1 Chr.19:18)?; Jashobeam slew 300 (1 Chr.11:11) or 800 (2 Sam.23:8)?; population Israel 800,000 (2 Sam.24:9) or 1,100,000 (1 Chr.21:5)?; Judah, 500,000 (2 Sam.24) or 470,000 (1 Chr.21)?; price David paid for threshing floor 50 shekels silver (2 Sam.24:24) or 600 shekels gold (1 Chr.21:5)?; Solomon, 40,000 stalls (1 K.4:26) or 4,000 (2 Chr.9:25)?; Ahaziah, 22 when began reign (2 K.8:26) or 42 (2 Chr.22:2)?; Sennacherib invaded Judah in 14th year of Hezekiah (2 K.18:13) or 24th year (2 K.18:1)?; Jehoiachin 18 when became king (2 K.24:8) or 8 (2 Chr.36:9)?; numbers in Ezra 2 different from Neh. 7; two demoniacs (Mt.8:28-34) or one (Mk.5:1-20; Lk.8:26-39)?; two blind men healed at Jericho (Mt.20:29-34) or one (Mk.10:46-52; Lk.18:35-43), coming into (Lk.18:35) or out of (Mt.20:29-34; Mk.10:46-52) the city?; two donkeys (Mt.21:2) or one (Mk.11:2; Lk.19:30)?; one angel at tomb (Mt.28:5) or two (Jn.20:12)?

Names. Purchaser of sepulcher Jacob (Josh.24:32) or Abraham (Acts 7:15,16)?; Joseph’s purchasers, Midianites (Gen.37:28,36), Ishmaelites (Gen.37:25,28)?; 75 persons down to Egypt (Acts 7:14) or 70 (Ex.1:5; Gen.46:27)?; Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (Ex.3:1; 4:18; 18:5), Reul or Raquel (Ex.2:18; Num.10:29)?; Mount Horeb (Dt.4:10-15) or Sinai (Ex.19:11)?; Aaron, died at Moserah (Dt.10:6) or Mt. Hor (Num.20:27,28)?; Job’s children all died (1:19; 8:4) or some living (19:17)?; Abigail’s father Nahash (2 Sam.17:25) or Jesse (1 Chr.2:13,16)?; Abigail’s mother, daughter of Abishalom (1 K.15:2) or Uriel (2 Chr.12:2); Anah, a Hittite (Gen.26:34), a Horite (Gen.36:20), or a Hivite (Gen.36:2); Caleb’s father, Jephunneh (Josh.14:6), Hur (1 Chr.2:50), or Hezron (1 Chr.2:18)?; Joram father of Uzziah (Mt.1:8) or Ahaziah (1 Chr.3:11)?; Ahaziah father of Jotham (Mt.1:9) or Uzziah (2 K.15:32,34)?; Christ’s genealogies different (Mt.1:16; Lk.3:23); Zechariah son of Jehoiada (2 Chr.24:20-22) or Berechiah (Jesus, Mt.23:34,35)?

Quotations. Misquote of Mic.5:2 (Mt.2:6) also 2 Sam.5:2; "Nazarene" (Mt.2:23) not in OT? (Num.6:2; Isa.11:1; 53:3; Jer.23:5; 33:15; Zech.3:8; 6:12); misquote of Mal.3:1 (Mk.1:2); Potter’s field reference wrongly attributed to Jeremiah (Mt.27:9; Zech.11:13; Jer.19:2,11; 32:9)?; Peter misapplies Joel 2:28-32 (Acts 2:16-21)?; Paul quotes uninspired pagan poet, Acts 17:28; quotes Eliphaz’s words, 1 Cor.3:19; pagan poet, 1 Cor.15:33; misquote of Ps.68:18 (Eph.4:8); pagan poet, Tit.1:12; misquote of Ps.40:6 (Heb.10:6,7); apocryphal story, Jude 9; book of Enoch quoted, Jude 14.

Others. Adam didn’t die day he ate (Gen.2:17; 3:18,19; 5:5); will or not be any poor in the land? (Dt.15:4,11); field, barley (2 Sam.23:11) or lentils (1 Chr. 11:13)?; answer a fool or not (Prov.26:4,5)?; thirteen or fourteen generations between captivity and Christ (Mt.1:17); the centurion sought Jesus’ help (Mt.8:5) or sent elders (Lk.7:3)?; hell, fire (Rev.20:14) or darkened (Mt.8:12)?; did God move David to number Israel (2 Sam.24:1) or Satan (1 Chr.21:1,2)?; parable of talents (Mt.25:14-30), pounds (Lk.19:11-27) different; cursing fig tree, before cleansing Temple (Mk.11:12-14,20-24) or after (Mt.21:12-19)?; inscriptions over cross do not agree (Mt.27:37; Mk.15:26; Lk.23:38); did both thieves revile Christ on cross (Mt.27:44) or only one (Lk.23:39)?; words of centurion at cross different (Mt.27:54; Mk.15:39; Lk.23:47); sermon, on mount (Mt.5:1,2) or level place (Lk.6:17)?; standing to teach (Lk.6:17) or seated (Mt.5:1,2)?; words of sermon are different; Jesus’ questions about the Messiah being David’s son different (Mt.22:42; Lk.20:41); number of Peter’s denials before cock crowed twice (Mt.26:34; Lk.22:61) or once (Mk.16:30)?; why disciples and Mary didn’t recognize Jesus (Lk.24:31; John 20:14-16); disciples went to Galilee (Mt.28:10,16) instead of staying in Jerusalem (Lk.24:49)?; "I go not up to the feast" (Jn.7:8), then went (7:10); altar of incense in most holy place behind veil (Heb.9:3,4) or in holy place (Ex.30:6)?

At the end of his exhaustive labors on the subject of discrepancies in the Bible, John W. Haley concluded in his preface,

"Moreover, I may be allowed to say that the more thoroughly I have investigated the subject the more clearly have I seen the flimsy and disingenuous character of the objections alleged by infidels. And, whether or not my labors shall result in inducing a similar belief in the minds of my readers, I cannot but avow, as the issue of my investigations, the profound conviction that every difficulty and discrepancy in the scriptures is, and will yet be seen to be, capable of a fair and reasonable solution." (Haley, op.cit., preface, emphases in original)

Gleason Archer writes in his preface:

"The idea for this book first occurred to me in October 1978, in connection with the Summit Conference of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, held in Chicago. At that time it was apparent that a chief objection to inerrancy was that the extant copies of Scripture contain substantial errors, some of which defy even the most ingenious use of textual criticism. In my opinion this charge can be refuted and its falsity exposed by an objective study done in a consistent, evangelical perspective....As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself—or else by objective archaeological information....[N]o properly trained evangelical scholar has anything to fear from the hostile arguments and challenges of humanistic rationalists or detractors of any and every persuasion. There is a good and sufficient answer in Scripture itself to refute every charge that has ever been leveled against it....[N]o specific charge of falsehood or mistake can be successfully maintained in the light of all the relevant data....[E]very asserted proof of mistake in the original manuscripts of Scripture is without foundation when examined in the light of the established rules of evidence." (Archer, op.cit., pp. 11,12,20)

Norman Geisler writes:

"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!" (Op.cit., p.26)

Harold Lindsell writes:

"I do not wish with a casual wave of my hand to dismiss the questions that critics have raised about errors in Scripture. However, I do not think the problem areas constitute a threat to biblical infallibility nor do I think that there are any insoluble difficulties. This does not mean that I can provide a ready solution to every datum raised by those who oppose inerrancy. I can say, however, that a multitude of what formerly were difficulties have been solved, so that the detractors have had to back water again and again. But as each apparent discrepancy is resolved, another objection is raised. Although in hundreds of cases criticisms of Scripture have been shown to be unfounded, those who refuse to believe in inerrancy never seem to be satisfied. Why is this so? Does it not constitute a frame of mind that wants to disbelieve? Does it reflect a view point that says in effect, ‘I will not believe what the Scripture teaches about itself until every objection has been answered to my satisfaction?’...May not the real difficulty be a want of biblical faith rather than a want of evidence?...I have satisfied myself that a multitude of the problems surfaced by critics of former ages have already been answered and no longer constitute problem areas....What about the problems that remain? It is my judgment that many of the so-called discrepancies will be resolved as evangelical scholars give their attention to them. It would be foolish for me or for anyone else to assert that all of the difficulties will be answered this side of eternity. They may, or they may not be. But the absence of a solution for even a single remaining problem is no reason to suppose that there is no solution." (The Battle for the Bible, Harold Lindsell; Zondervan: Grand Rapids,MI; 1976, pp. 61,181,182, emphases in original)

This section on objections to the doctrine of inspiration ends just the same way the other four do—there is no proof that the Bible contains discrepancies or errors. The Bible wins again!

Geisler, Norman L., ed. Inerrancy; Zondervan, Academie

Torrey, R.A. Difficulties in the Bible; Moody: Chicago; n.d.

Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center