• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
For the Seeker:
Contradictions and the Bible
By Josiah Batten
 
In any discussion regarding the truthfulness and validity of Christian faithone of the first issues to be raised will likely bethe allegation that the Biblecontradicts itself. Certainly this is a quick and convenient charge for askeptic to make. After all, it takes time and effort to understandhermeneutics, how to properlyinterpret the Bible. However, anybodycapable of citing two quick references may charge “contradiction!” Such aclaim requires only a surface level glance from which one may assert theworst possible interpretation is the most likely.However, there are certain principles we should remember in evaluating analleged Biblical contradiction. These we will examine:
Principle 1: The Burden of Proof 
 The
burden of proof 
in an argument falls on the one making a new, or insome cases positive, assertion. If I believe the U.S. Constitution should beamended to allow naturalized citizens to hold the office of President then theburden of proof is on me, because I’m arguing something new. I’m arguingfor a change, I’m making the positive assertion that naturalized citizensshould be allowed to become President. At the present time, this is notConstitutional, thus I have the burden of positively arguing for my claim. Those who don’t agree with me have the
benefit of assumption
. Becausenaturalized citizens may not be President at the present time,those opposinga Constitutional amendment may assume this is the best opinion untilconvincing arguments are presented that prove otherwise.In relation toalleged Biblical contradictions, those that positively assert thereis a contradiction have the burden of proof. That is, they are the ones thatmust prove there is in fact a legitimate contradiction. If they cannot showbeyond all reasonable doubt that Verse A and Verse B are mutually exclusiveand may not both simultaneously be true then there is no contradiction.
Principle 2: Context
In attempting to show that two verses/passages are contradictory, theskeptic must consider context. Every verse must be interpreted in thecontext ofsurrounding verses, the chapter, the book in which it is found, andin the context of the entire Bible. It’s also important to consider the
historical-grammatical
context, that is, what genre is the book in which thesepassages are found? What does the syntax show us? What did this wordmean in the original language? (Remember, the Bible was written inHebrew, Greek, and Aramaic). The goal is to understand how the passagewould have been understood by the original audience. Take Psalm 14:1 for example: “"There is no God."” (NIV). Obviously thisstatement, found in the Bible, is not compatible with the rest of the Bible thatassumes there is a God and He is manifested to humanity in the person of 
 
 Jesus Christ. So is the Bible in error, does this verse contradict others? No,let’s examine it in context:“”The fool says in his heart,"There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;there is no one who does good.”” (Psalm 14:1, NIV).We quickly see the author is saying that only a fool would claim there is noGod. When we examine the statement in the context of the whole verse themeaning is made very clear. Most alleged contradictions aremisinterpretations, and most misinterpretations come from a lack of understanding of context.
Principle 3: Normative and Descriptive Passages
In II Samuel 11 we read of David and Bathsheba. Essentially, the Israelitesgo off to war, David neglects his kingly duties and stays home. He seesBathsheba bathing and he sleeps with her. She becomes pregnant so Davidhas her husband, one of his warriors, placed in the place with the heaviestfighting so he will die and David can marry Bathsheba.Of course the above events involve many moral failures. But according to II Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of Godmay be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (NIV). Are we really tosay that what David did trains us in righteousness? That we should imitatehis example of adultery and murder?Obviously not, and here’s why. The Bible contains
descriptive
passages, andit contains
normative
commands. A descriptive passage describes whathappened;in this case it describes the historical event of David sleeping withBathsheba. But a descriptive passage is not a normative command. Anormative command is like “thou shalt not steal”. That is a command thatdefines a moral course of action binding on all people for all time;all of usshould obey that command. Thus, on the basis of normative commands we can look at David’s actionsand learn from them. We can be taught about potentially compromisingsituations, we can be trained to avoid the bad things that David did. Adescriptive passage still teaches us, but normative passages set thestandard for deciding whether a descriptive passage was acceptable andsomething we should emulate or a failure that we should avoid.
Principle 4: Don’t Accept the Most Shallow Reading
 This principle is derived from the first three. Many skeptics will take versesand passagesand present them in the way most benefiting to their case. Their guiding rule is this: If it
can
be interpreted to discredit the Bible, it
should and must 
be interpreted to discredit the Bible.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...