Tips for Approaching Bible Difficulties

Most Bible difficulties fall into one of the following areas:

1.  Assuming the unexplained is unexplainable - Anomalies found in nature are not treated this way, else science would not have progressed the way it has. Many passages of Scripture once thought unexplainable, have found explanation in the light of research and discovery. This inspires confidence that biblical difficulties that have not been explained are not errors in the Bible, but will find solution with further study and research.

2.  Assuming the Bible is guilty of error unless proven innocent - No one demands that all things must be proven empirically before they are to be believed. Like a citizen charged with an offence, the Bible ought to be given the same presumption of accuracy given to other literature which claims to be non-fiction.

3.  Confusing interpretations with revelation - God's revelation is perfect, human interpretation is not. The conflict between science and the Bible boils down to a conflict between man's interpretation of nature and the biblical text. Note that many so called scientific facts that were said to have disproved the Bible have today been utterly discarded.

4.  Failure to understand the context - The Bible can be made to say anything we want by lifting passages from their context. This is the chief sin of those who find fault with the Bible.

5.  Interpreting the difficult by the clear - We must allow the Bible to be its own interpreter. For example, James' words seem to teach that works earns salvation whereas Paul is emphatic that salvation is by grace through faith. Comparing Scripture to Scripture we see that James is speaking of justification before others, whereas Paul is speaking of justification before God. Allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter has solved many so-called difficulties.

6.  Teaching on an obscure passage - Some words used in the Biblical text are found only once, allowing for differing interpretations (i.e. Matt. 6:11, "Daily" may be translated "continuous", "super substantial", or "for our sustenance"). Though each has its merits and supporters, the rule to follow is that "the main things are the plain things. It is a mistake to build an entire theology around an obscure passage.

7.  Forgetting the Bible's human characteristics - The Bible is a human book, but it is a mistake to assume that it's merely a human book (just like Jesus was a man, but is wrong to suggest that He was only a man). Nevertheless, the book's human side comes through in the form of individual literary styles, the use of human sources for their material (Josh 10:13, Acts 17:28, 1 Cor. 15:33, Titus 1:12). These books reveal human thought patterns (i.e. memory lapses, 1 Cor. 1:14-16), and human emotions (Gal. 4:4), written from an observer's viewpoint (Josh1:15). Forgetting the humanity of Scripture can lead to a level of expression higher than that which is customary to a human document.

8.  Assuming a partial report is a false report - If it were true that partial reports were to be considered false, then very little of anything reported could be considered true! Time and space rarely allow for an absolutely complete report. Also note that inspiration does not exclude a diversity of expression. Biblical writers often express the same thing in variety of ways, each contributing to a clearer picture of what actually happened. (Compare Peter's confession of Jesus; Matt 6:16, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Mark 8:29, "You are the Christ." Luke 9:20, "The Christ of God.")

9.  Testament citations of the Old Testaments - Critics often point to the variation in New Testament use of Old Testament Scriptures. It's important to note that not every citation need be an exact quotation. It is entirely acceptable today, as it was then, to give the essence of a statement without having to make an exact quotation. Some examples:

   Zechariah 12:10, the states, "They will look on me…" John (19:37) is speaking in the New Testament, and so states, "They will look on Him…"

   Luke 4:18-19, Jesus quotes only part of Isaiah 61:1-2. Actually He stops the quote in the middle of the sentence because the latter half speaks of His second advent.

   Matthew 2:6 is an example of a New Testament paraphrase of an Old Testament passage.

   Matthew 27:9-10 contains an example of a two O.T. texts being blended into one New Testament citation.

   Matthew 2:23 ("He shall be called a Nazarene") is an example of a New Testament author citing a Old Testament general truth. No specific prophet is mentioned by Matthew but, "prophets". Several O.T. passages refer to the Messiah's lowliness at His first advent. To be from Nazareth, a Nazarene, was a byword for low status in Israel in Jesus' day.

   Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11:1, an example of how a New Testament author may apply an Old Testament text in a different way. "Out of Egypt I have called My Son", applies in Hosea to the Messianic nation, whereas Matthew applies to the product of that nation, the Messiah Himself.

10.  Assuming divergent accounts are false - Divergent accounts are not necessarily contradictions. A contradiction is where two or more statements exclude to the possibility of the other(s) being true. The Gospels do contain divergent accounts, yet these do not contradict, but rather compliment each other, forming a clearer picture of what actually transpired. Divergent accounts of this type argue strongly that the Gospels are independent sources, and not simply one account being parroted by three other authors.

11.  Presuming the Bible approves of all it records - Inspiration encompasses the Bible fully in that it records accurately and truthfully even the lies and errors of sinful human beings. The truth of Scripture lies in what it reveals, not in what it records. The Bible does narrate sin, but never does the Bible condone it.

12.  Forgetting that the Bible is non-technical - The Bible was written in a pre-scientific age, and for the common person of every generation. It is a mistake to superimpose modern scientific standards on it. A statement does not have to be made in technical, scholarly, scientific terms, in order to be true. (I.E. Josh 10:12 where the sun stood still, may not be technically accurate, yet even today meteorologists speak o "sunrise" and "sunset".)

13.  Assuming round numbers are false - Precession and truthfulness are not exactly the same. In a technological society, it may imprecise to speak of 3.14159265 as "3", but it is not incorrect.

14.  Neglecting to note literary devices - Human language is noted limited to one mode of expression. There's no reason to suppose that only one literary genre would be used in an inspired book. Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Solomon are books exemplify poetic Scriptures. Parables are featured in to Synoptic Gospels. Paul utilizes allegory in Galatians 4. The New Testament contains metaphors (2 Cor. 3:2-3; James 3:6), similes (Matt 20:1, James 1:6), and hyperbole (John 21:25; 2 Cor. 3:2, Col. 1:23). It's not a mistake for a biblical writer to use a figure of speech, but it is a mistake for the reader to take a figure of speech literally.

15.  Forgetting that only the original text is inerrant - Genuine mistakes have been found and variations in the NT text does exist. It must be remembered that although no one today can claim to have seen an inerrant original, it's just as true that no one has seen an errant one. Some points to remember:

    1. The errors which have been detected are very minor and do not affect Christian doctrine
    2. Copyist errors are relatively few in number
    3. Usually by context or other scriptures the error can be detected (i.e. 2 Kings 8:26 states that King Ahaziah was 22, whereas 2 Chronicles 22:2 says 42. The latter cannot be correct otherwise he would be older than his father!)
    4. The sheer number of ancient manuscripts (24,000 +) enables us to determine scribal errors from inspired text.

16.  Confusing general with universal statements - Proverbs is a good example of wisdom teachings (general guidelines), not law (universally binding imperatives). There are no exceptions to God's law (i.e. "You shall therefore be Holy, for I am Holy." Lev 11:45). Holiness, goodness, love, truth, and justice are rooted in the very nature of The Unchanging God. Wisdom literature, however, applies God's universal truths to life's changing circumstances.

17.  Forgetting that later revelation supersedes earlier - The idea that a change in revelation is a mistake, is itself, a mistake. God does not reveal everything at once, nor does he lay down the same conditions for every period of history. A small child may be permitted to eat with his fingers, but an older child is expected to use a fork. This is not a contradiction, but progressive revelation, each command is suited to the circumstances.

    Changing commands:

    Genesis 2:16-17 - the command not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, however, later revelation does not contradict this command.

    Under Mosaic Law, animals were sacrificed for people's sins. Because of the work of Christ these laws are no longer in effect.

    Genesis 1:29 - God commanded that all animals were to be vegetarians. This command was changed in Genesis 9:3.

    These are not contradictions, but different commands for different people at different times in God's overall plan of redemption

    Unchanging Commands:

    God cannot change commands that have to do with His unchanging nature. For example, God is love (1 John 4:16), so He can't command that we hate Him.

    Dr. Norman Geisler states ("The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics", p. 80):

"After forty years of continual and careful study of the Bible, I can only conclude that those who have 'discovered a mistake' in the Bible do not know too much about the Bible - they know too little about it. This does not mean, of course, that we understand how to resolve all the difficulties in the Scriptures. But we have seen enough problems resolved that these also admit answers. Meanwhile, Mark Twain had a point when he concluded that it was not the parts of the Bible he did not understand that bothered him - but the parts he did understand!"