Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link. I will give you my reaction:
Biblical inconsistencies come in two basic flavors. Some passages are literally consistent, i.e., they do not contradict each other – but they present contradictory pictures of God or of His commands. (Let’s call these theologically inconsistent passages.) Others are literally inconsistent, giving differing factual accounts of the same event.
An example of theological inconsistency: John 8:50 quotes Christ as declaring that he did not seek his own glory, suggesting that the sacrifice of Christ was purely an act of selfless love. Yet Heb. 12:2 suggests that Christ endured the cross “for the joy that was set before him,” i.e., exaltation to the right-hand seat in the throne room of God./'
" an act of selfless love' and 'the joy that was set before him" are two different things.
'exaltation to the right-hand seat in the throne room of God" would not be possible without "an act of selfless love." but if you want to believe its a theological inconsistency, go right ahead.
All that is required of us is to come up with plausible or reasonable, even possible explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction. Whether or not our explanation is the “true one” is not all that relevant in such contexts.The second type of inconsistency―the literal ones―I find easiest to explain through human error. And here, I part company with the inerrancy theorists. They care deeply that their Bible contain no factual inconsistencies whatsoever, even as to the extraneous historical details that have no bearing on the theological message of Scripture. And they are willing to indulge in some rather convoluted explanations to reach their goal. If they cannot reach that goal without total sacrifice of logic, they may plead a copyist’s error as a last resort, but a sacrifice of logic is generally favored over that last resort. But when there is a facial error/contradiction, the burden of proof shifts to the inerrancy theorist to explain it away. I will concede that with sufficient presumptions and mental machinations indulging the improbable, virtually all of these facial inconsistencies can be harmonized. My question is, why indulge them?
143 so called contradictions have been explained, but you want me to jump into another rabbit hole.The only reason I can see to do so is in order to shore up one’s initial presumption of inerrancy. For example, in attempting a harmonization of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10, Vern S. Poythress states “We have the accounts in Mathew and Luke, which are inspired by God. They are what God says and are therefore trustworthy. That is the conviction we have and the basis on which we work.” Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization (Crossway 2012) at 21.
And here is where I must dissent. This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom by which to assess the evidence.
I believe the Bible is inerrant based on faith, which you seem to lack.I do not see the point in downplaying the human element like this. I expect theological truth from my Bible, not factual accuracy on minute historical details. And I am not scandalized by inaccuracies as to the latter. The better approach, in my opinion, is to focus on the inerrancy of the message of a given passage, rather than of the extraneous details with which the passage is adorned.
Consider, for example, Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time. In my view, it doesn’t matter whether Jesus got this detail wrong or Mark got it wrong, simply because it doesn’t matter at all―to the message of the gospel story. The point being made by Jesus (or Mark) is theologically sound even if not historically accurate, originally or in the retelling.