Skeptic Tank Text Archive File
Pages 4-8: autumn 1992
BIBLE INERRANCY: A BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE
Farrell Till
I commend Mr. Miller for an excellent definition of the Bible inerrancy
doctrine and perhaps an even better explanation of the importance of the
doctrine to Christianity. Maybe it is a carry-over from my own fundamental-
ist background, but I have a much deeper admiration for Christians who
believe in a divinely inspired inerrant Bible than those who believe in a
divinely inspired errant Bible. To the latter, I can only repeat what Mr.
Miller said in the foregoing article: "If the Holy Spirit is responsible for what
the biblical writers wrote, and if the Bible contains errors in historical de-
tails, then the Holy Spirit is the author of error" (p. 2). As Mr. Miller
effectively argued, for the Bible to be authoritative, it must be inerrant;
otherwise, man is left with an impractical moral guide, for what good is a
moral guide that is blemished with errors? If the Bible says X, and one can
establish that X is an untruth, then how can he trust anything else it says?
Mr. Miller may have been on track in recognizing the absolute necessity of
an inerrant, "trustworthy" revelation in order to give credibility and authori-
ty to a religious system, but he wandered far afield in his attempt to prove
that the Bible provides Christianity with such a revelation. An entire section
of his article was devoted to a discussion of "the biblical claim for
inerrancy," but I have to disagree with his contention that the Bible claims
inerrancy, because it doesn't. Every scripture that Miller cited in this sec-
tion concerned either promises to send the Holy Spirit to guide the disciples
in what they should say or claims that the scriptures were inspired of God or
that prophets had spoken as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. However,
to say that the Holy Spirit was sent to guide men in what to say or that men
spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit is not to say that whatever
these men said or wrote under the direction of the Holy Spirit was inerrant.
To arrive at the doctrine of inerrancy, one must go through the logical
process that Miller took us through in his article. A basic premise of this
process is that if the Holy Spirit is omniscient and omnipotent, then any
document that he verbally inspired would have to be inerrant, because an
omniscient, omnipotent deity would be incapable of error.
I would agree with Miller's logic if he could prove three things: (1) an
entity known as the Holy Spirit actually exists, (2) this entity known as the
Holy Spirit is both omniscient and omnipotent, and (3) this Holy Spirit verbal-
ly inspired all of the writers of the Bible in everything that they wrote.
Unfortunately for Miller's confidence in Bible inerrancy, these are all very
big ifs, none of which he could actually prove if his life depended on it. This
underscores the major problem in the Bible inerrancy doctrine: it is based on
unprovable assumptions. Any belief founded on assumptions is worthless.
Even if we grant Mr. Miller the first two of his assumptions, he would
still have a very high hurdle to clear in the third one. That hurdle, of
course, would be to establish the truth of the biblical claim that its writers
were inspired by the Holy Spirit. A claim is only a claim and must therefore
be examined before its truth can be confirmed. Mr. Miller can never prove
the truth of the biblical claim of divine inspiration. Claims of divinely in-
spired books are almost a dime a dozen. The Book of Mormon claims to be a
"latter day" revelation from God; the Avesta claims that it was divinely in-
spired; the Koran claims that it was revealed to man by the angel Gabriel. So
what evidence can Miller give us to prove that we should accept the biblical
claim of inspiration over all the many others? Christian apologists have tried
to give us such proof, but Miller made no attempt to do so in his article.
Like so many Bible fundamentalists, he just made the claim and expected his
readers to accept it. In the publication in which his article originally ap-
peared, he could get away with this, because the paper is aimed at a predom-
1
inantly fundamentalist audience. However, more rational readers, which we
believe The Skeptical Review has, will insist on much more than what Mr.
Miller gave them in the reprint of his article.
Miller listed three categories of "alleged"errors in the Bible and declared
that the Bible has "weathered" all attempts by skeptics to prove that these
are actual errors. "(T)he Bible has consistently been vindicated," he boldly
asserted, "and demonstrated to possess the unequaled characteristic of inter-
nal harmony, accuracy, and consistency."
This is typical fundamentalist rhetoric. There are hundreds of Bible
scholars who would instantly reject such a claim as this, because their biblical
studies have made them aware of many inconsistencies and discordant themes
in the Bible text. Dozens of these have been identified and discussed in The
Skeptical Review, yet Mr. Miller, who is on our mailing list, has never taken
pen in hand to explain to us how that these errors aren't really errors. I
have challenged him to debate the inerrancy issue, but he has never re-
sponded to my letters. One has to wonder why he refuses the opportunity to
discuss in public forum a doctrine that he claims is easily defendable and at
the same time absolutely essential to Christianity. Could it be that his confi-
dence in Bible inerrancy is not as resolute as he pretends when writing to a
sympathetic audience?
Miller asserts that the Bible possesses an "unequaled characteristic of
internal harmony" (p. 3). This is a familiar claim that makes good sermon
fodder for gullible pulpit audiences, but it simply isn't true. Admittedly,
there is considerable harmony in the Bible, but there is no reason to see
divine intervention in this. The so-called canonical books were selected by
committees and councils of rabbis, clerics, and "church fathers," who dis-
cussed and debated various books and finally selected the ones that were to
be considered "inspired" or canonical. Quite naturally, the theological themes
and doctrines of these books were considered before they were selected, so a
high degree of harmony and consistency of themes would be expected in a
compilation that had gone through such a rigid editing process. Anyone who
doubts that the books of the Bible were selected in just a manner as this
should read volume one of The Cambridge History of the Bible. If he should
bother to read it, Mr. Miller would find historical facts about the evolution of
the biblical canon that would reduce his miracle of internal harmony to noth-
ing but sheer ordinariness.
Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected,
the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's
claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible
bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an
earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12),
whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the
Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as
obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to
avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4).
Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological
and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.
Any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the
book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made
the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy sur-
rounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew
canon. The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained infor-
mation that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one
example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here
Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one]
young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions
for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young
bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram." The discrepancy or, if you please, lack
2
of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.
At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book
should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Hani-
niah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked
day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the
discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge
University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as
this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled
internal harmony." Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely
the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of
what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations
that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obvi-
ously were intended to mean?
I could discuss many other textual inconsistencies, but these are suffi-
cient to demolish Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" in the
Bible. This claim has been preached and preached and preached from funda-
mentalist pulpits, but it simply is not true.
Mr. Miller placed an exaggerated importance on historical and geographical
accuracy in the Bible. Again, this is a familiar inerrancy argument. Those
who point to this feature in the Bible appear to be arguing that if the Bible
has been proven true in some of what it says, then it must be true in all
that it says. The fallacy in this reasoning is evident from the simple fact
that accuracy, historical, geographical, or otherwise, doesn't constitute proof
of inspiration. One can sit in a library all day long and find historical and
geographical accuracy in book after book. No one would assume, however,
that their accuracy meant that they had been divinely inspired. A more
reasonable conclusion would be that the authors had researched their subjects
or were by personal experience familiar with the history and geography of the
events and places that they were writing about. Why shouldn't the same be
assumed about historical and geographical accuracy in the Bible?
Despite the fact that there is undeniably some accuracy in the Bible,
scholars are now convinced that many inaccuracies can be found in it. Exo-
dus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy report that the Hebrews, numbering as many
as 2.5 to 3 million, left Egypt, wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years,
and finally invaded and conquered the promised land. Most biblical scholars
and archaeologists doubt the historical accuracy of this biblical story. The
March/April issue of Archaeology magazine declared that neither the exodus
nor the conquest of Canaan happened as recorded in the Bible. "Today's
archaeologists are certainly not the first to challenge the Book of Joshua,"
said Neil Asher Silberman in the feature article. "Its historical reliability has
been a matter of dispute for more than two centuries" ("Who Were the Israel-
ites?" p. 22).
Bibliolaters love to preach that archaeology has provided amazing confir-
mation of biblical accuracy. In my written debate with Bill Jackson, he
rashly asserted that "in 140 years of constant research in the lands of the
Bible, archaeologists have yet to find a single fact in contradiction to what
the Bible has said" (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 3), but this claim is a far cry
from reality, as the edition of Archaeology cited above will verify. Speaking
at an archaeological conference at the Royal Ontario Museum, Israeli archaeol-
ogist Eliezer Oren reported that "his efforts at more than 80 sites in the Sinai
from 1972 to 1982 had not turned up any support for the historical accuracy
of when the exodus was supposed to have occurred" (Barry Brown, "Israeli
Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto
Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren went on to tell of the discovery of papyrus
notes that reported the sightings of two fugitive slaves. "They were spotted
and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age
weren't?" Oren asked. "This can't be explained unless you invoke miracles
here, and I am a member of the department of archaeology and not of mira-
3
cles."
Bible inerrantists have a field day whenever an archaeologist makes a
discovery that seems to confirm something written in the Bible. In complete
disregard of archaeological studies that discredit the biblical record (like
those noted above), they leap immediately to the conclusion that the new
discovery confirms the truth of everything in the Bible, when in reality the
discovery proves only that there is some truth in the Bible. Classical schol-
ars once believed that the Grecian epic of the Iliad was mythology, that no
Trojan War had ever occurred, that the cities of Troy and Mycenae had never
even existed. Then the German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann, using the
Iliad as his guide, discovered and later excavated the sites of both cities.
When this was done, no classical scholars rushed forth to proclaim that the
Iliad was completely inerrant in its original autograph or that it had been
inspired by God. They were intelligent enough to realize that archaeology
had proven only that there is some truth in the Iliad. Bible inerrantists,
however, show no such restraint. They want to see confirmation of one
biblical statement as proof that all biblical statements are true. In so doing,
they show their complete lack of objectivity.
Miller asserted that "(m)any charges [of biblical inerrancy] have been
advanced, but in every case the alleged contradiction or error has been
successfully explained or, in those areas where adequate information is cur-
rently unavailable, sufficient alternative explanations have been presented to
dispel the credibility of the charge," but the successful explanations that he
alluded to have been successful only to credulously gullible fundamentalists
who are determined to believe in biblical inerrancy no matter how convincing
the evidence to the contrary. Just a look at the endnotes that Miller used to
"support" the points he offered in defense of the inerrancy doctrine is suffi-
cient to discredit his attempt to appear scholarly. Altogether, he cited ten
different books, seven of which were published by Eerdmans, Baker House,
or Zondervan of Grand Rapids, Michigan. All three are notorious for publish-
ing books slanted to the supposition that the Bible is the "inspired word of
God." One of the books was published by Jack Lewis, who was a professor of
Bible and religion at Harding University when I was a student there. Since
he still teaches there, I assume he has not changed the fundamentalist view
of the Bible that he had when I was a student, so I would hardly expect to
see anything in a book he authored except the usual inerrancy line. Two of
Miller's other references came from books published by Moody press and the
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, neither of which has a
reputation for unbiased biblical scholarship. The tenth reference was from an
article written by none other than Wayne Jackson, whose illogical fundamental-
ist views have been exposed so often in TSR that no further comment is
necessary.
This, then, is the depth of scholarship that Miller finds on his side in the
Bible inerrancy controversy, so when he says that all "alleged" Bible contra-
dictions and errors have been "successfully explained," this is a claim that
must definitely be viewed with suspicion.
As an example of an "alleged" Bible contradiction that has been "success-
fully explained," let's just review one that was recently noted in "The Resur-
rection Maze" (TSR, Spring 1992, p. 13). According to Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, Mary Magdalene was in the group of women who were told by angels at
the empty tomb that Jesus had risen "even as he said," and Luke even said
that when the women heard this, "they remembered his words" (24:9). Such
statements as these (aside from the fact that Matthew even claimed that the
women saw Jesus, held him, and worshipped him as they were running from
the tomb to tell the disciples what they had seen, 28:9) definitely indicate
that the women left the tomb convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead.
Despite the clarity of these statements, John's account of the resurrection
had Mary saying, after she had found the disciples, "They have taken away
the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him" (20:1).
4
I suppose Mr. Miller would call this an "alleged" discrepancy that has
been successfully explained, but how has it been explained? In my article
cited above, I quoted what Gleason Archer, a leading apostle of Bible iner-
rantists, said to explain it:
She [Mary] apparently had not yet taken in the full import of
what the angel meant when he told her that the Lord had risen
again and that He was alive. In her confusion and amazement, all
she could think of was that the body was not there; and she did
not know what had become of it. Where could that body now be?
It was for this reason that she wanted Peter and John to go back
there and see what they could find out (Encyclopedia of Bible
Difficulties, pp. 348-349).
Mr. Miller may consider this a "successful explanation" of the problem, but I
don't and neither does anyone else whose perspective has not been completely
distorted by fundamentalist nonsense. What is there about a far-fetched,
entirely speculative explanation like this that makes it "successful"? And
what about all of the other inconsistencies and discrepancies that have been
noted in the series of resurrection articles that TSR has published. What are
the "successful explanations" to these, and why hasn't some fundamentalist
who finds it so easy to defend Bible inerrancy come forth with them? We will
give space to Mr. Miller or any other fundamentalist who wishes to provide
the explanations.
Mr. Miller set out to explain (to an audience already predisposed to agree
with him) why he believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, but all he did was
show that he believes in Bible inerrancy... well, just because he believes in
it. He believes that the Bible is God's inspired word for the same reason
that a Moslem believes that the Koran is Allah's inspired word. It is some-
thing that he was taught to believe and that he grew up believing without
ever bothering to examine the belief to see if it has any basis in fact. If he
wishes to respond to this article, we will publish it.
**********************************************
OUR OWN EFFORT
A thousand dollars Is certainly nothing to sneeze at, so we decided to
try for Ralph Nielsen's $1,000 reward. In taking the information from the
opening verses of each gospel account of the resurrection, we hit a snag
when we tried to fuse it all into one consistent statement. Our effort came
out like this:
When the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother
of James, Joanna, Salome, and the other women bought spices to
anoint the body. Late on the sabbath day, at early dawn, as it
began to dawn toward the first day of the week, they came to see
the sepulchre when the sun was risen, very early on the first
day of the week, while it was yet dark.
That was obviously no good, because elements of glaring contradiction were
already present, most notably in the statements that say the women went to
the tomb when the sun was risen but while it was yet dark. So we tried
again:
When the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother
of James, Joanna, Salome, and the other women bought spices to
anoint the body. Late on the sabbath day while it was yet dark,
they came to see the sepulchre at early dawn, as it began to
5
dawn toward the first day of the week, very early on the first
day of the week, when the sun was risen.
The theory behind this second effort was to see if there is any merit to the
inerrantist claim that John meant for his readers to understand that the trip
to the tomb began while it was yet dark, whereas the references of the other
writers to early dawn and the risen sun were alluding to the arrival time at
the tomb. It's a good theory, but it completely ignores the fact that John
said, "While it was yet dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb" (20:1,
NRSV). "While it was yet dark" is an adverbial expression of time that obvi-
ously modifies the verb came; thus, Mary came to the tomb while it was yet
dark, according to John. Likewise, expressions like "very early on the first
day of the week," "late on the sabbath day," "at early dawn," "as it began
to dawn toward the first day of the week," and "when the sun was risen" are
also adverbial phrases or clauses that modify the verb come in the passages
that they are used in. There is just no other verb in any of the accounts
for them to modify. For this reason, any effort to fuse all of the expressions
into one consistent statement is doomed to fail.
"When the sabbath was past" is an adverbial clause in Mark 16:1 that
modifies the verb bought. In other words, the women bought spices "when
the sabbath was past," yet came to the tomb "while it was yet dark." How
could both statements be true?
With no plausible way to solve this problem, we looked ahead and saw
another inconsistency waiting in the wings. According to Matthew, when the
women arrived, an "angel of the Lord" descended during an earthquake and
rolled the stone away from the sepulcher (28:2), but the other three writers
all said that the women found the stone already rolled away when they came
to the tomb (Mk. 16:4; Lk. 2: Jn. 20:1).
At this point, we gave up and decided that Mr. Nielsen's money is safe.
********************************
FREE SUBSCRIPTION: A free one-year subscription to The Skeptical
Review can be obtained by writing to P. O. Box 617, Canton, IL 61520-0617.
6
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank