I’m reading through the Bible (yes, in a non-approved version), and in going through Numbers 33, I was reminded of how difficult the wilderness itineraries are. There are a few places in Scripture where the travels of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan are recorded, and not only do they not reconcile easily, it’s hard for me to see how Numbers 33 works by itself. I don’t want to be more specific on why, but instead I want to make a corollary point.
Sometimes we hear others make comments on how there are errors in the Bible and things contradict. I don’t believe that there are any errors or contradictions in Scripture, but I don’t say that because I don’t see any. That is, at places, I do see problems that I can’t figure out. Because of faith (and a million other places where the biblical account is clearly accurate and trustworthy), I don’t believe that these are mistakes. I don’t believe that Numbers 33 is in error. But I confess that I can’t figure it out. The result is that my approach in talking to others is more characterized by humility. My conviction of the inerrancy of Scripture is solid, but my attitude is not an arrogant, in-your-face style. And when I figure Numbers 33 out one day, I think a sensitive and loving approach will still be best.
Maybe we need to change our definition of what an error is, that is, does a textual confusion or historical inaccuracy touch the truth of the message or weaken the Bible’s veracity?
I’m not sure the Bible, esp. the Old Testament, always claims a one-to-one correspondance to history. Often the Bible is truncated history, or history used loosely to illuminate a larger point, or poetry, or story, or myriad other things, non of which limits the Truth of the text. Fans of Tolkien know that the there is truth in his use of myth to illuminate a larger point, why wouldn’t that be allowable for Scripture?
I think we create the problem of “error” when we limit the Bible to only one form of communication, i.e. literal history, as if God ONLY speaks via purely historical dialogue. To be sure, the Bible is historically accurate when it claims to be history, but it’s also metaphorically, symbolically and typologically accurate, and sometimes those modes take precedence over mere history.
I like your point about trust in the text coupled with humility. I think this is precisely why God didn’t give us a big book of instructions, or a large bundle of always historically clear documents. The human tendancy is always to abuse others with Truth. The different forms in which the Bible is written don’t allow for that type of abuse, rather the variagated tapestry of scripture generates humility in the reader. In this sense, the so-called “errors” don’t touch the Truth, they merely temper its application with a humility that is God-ordained.
Good stuff.
“Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness”??? Give me a break! Why didn’t they just start by saying, “God, a completely mindless idiot, …”?!?! I’m not the least bit concerned about Num 33 until someone can show me a detailed map of the entire region produced in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. It’s like critics who claim that Noah couldn’t fit 2 or 7 of all the animals on the ark even though nobody knows how many animals there were, how old they were, or how big the ark was. It’s one thing to propose an idea & argue against someone else’s idea; it’s another thing to act like those interpretations are facts when nobody can prove/disprove them.
Stratkey – thanks for the thoughts. Before I change the definition of “error,” I’d rather say the Bible has errors. That is, a great danger in many areas of biblical studies has been a re-defining of terms, usually without that being made clear. Thus the Bible is without errors, but it didn’t happen as described. I find this approach more disingenuous and potentially dangerous. We as believers must be clear about what we mean.
I think what motivates the ideas you suggest is the possibility that the Bible does have errors. Therefore the way to “rescue” the Bible is to understand it in a different way than everyone before us has. So I have a problem with this motivation first of all. I do not find significant enough problems in the Bible to believe that it is not a historically reliable record.
As for the Tolkein analogy, I would ask for an example. What portion or story in the Bible is not intended as history and therefore should be understood for its larger point only? The problem here is that you will make this decision for stories or portions where there seems to be a lack of external evidence. There is (I’m guessing) nothing internal that would otherwise move us to understand it as non-historical. And personally, I have not come across anything external that is convincing. The best argument against the Bible is the lack of external attestation. And this is a very weak argument that gets weaker as we learn more about the ancient world.
I don’t agree that there is a Truth apart from truths. If the truths are not true, that is not the place to find Truth. Tolkien can tell a good tale that communicates Truth, but it is not God’s revelation.
Back to my first point, the “battle for the Bible” in the 1970s was over just this issue. Those who rejected inerrancy felt that they had no choice because of the “errors” in the Bible. I see difficulties, but nothing that I am convinced is an error.
Grena – on the Message, we disagree. I have found this work helpful and interesting. On Numbers 33, the problem that I have with it is that it seems to be inconsistent with other wilderness itineraries in the Bible. We’re never going to find a 2nd millennium map, and if that’s what is needed to prove or disprove, then the discussion is going to be ended prematurely. Your last point is a good one.
Todd, please consider writing separate blog entries on these 2 topics:
1) Tell us about the 1 verse or 1 paragraph of The Message Remix that seems “helpful” or superior to you over any other English translation. I only read a few pages shown on Amazon, & was thoroughly unimpressed. Convert me!
2) Tell us which English version of Gen 1:2 you believe to be the most accurate. You can also mention how you would translate it, or quote a version from a commentary, but I’d still like to hear which version of the complete Bible translations words it best.
No big hurry of course; I’ll just sit perched on the edge of my seat waiting “in much patience”…
Todd, this one is a pandora’s box, but I will make a couple comments here: First I guess I wasn’t being as clear as I could have been in my last post, so thanks for calling me out. We’re not changing the definition of the word error, but rather reaffirming the Church catholic’s understanding of what kind of error would be in some sense fatal or damaging to the Truth claims of the Bible.
I believe the histories and stories in the Canon to be true (as Christ affirms), and I also believe them to be sufficient and profitable for the reproof, edification and correction for the life of God’s church (as Paul affirms). I will even go beyond that to say that all the things described in the Bible actually happened at one point IN TIME, though I take that more on faith than science.
This however, does not mean that the Biblical accounts ALWAYS make sense or that the history isn’t in some sense incomplete and at times muddled (as you point out). To hold to that view you’d have to hold to some sort of ipsissima verba view of scripture and I think we both know the Bible would be a great deal better written if it was the VERY words of God.
In my mind, whether we choose to see problems as a lack of understanding on our part or as errors in the text is really inconsequential because the supposed errors are so few and far between and none of them really touch the accuracy or meaning of the message.
Beyond that, how we interpret the scriptures is in some sense always changing or proprietary. It’s dangerous to assume that the accurate interpretation is my interpretation, or that of Irenaeus or Paul or Eugene Petersen or whoever. There are, to be sure, determinate ranges of meaning obtaining from the text that are sufficient for our understanding (objective) and fully capable to lead us to God, but there is no ONE interpretation that has it all right. Remember the Pharisees.
Second, contrary to what you say, I think you’ll find that the view of scripture you’re advocating is a fairly recent (18th-19th century) addition to the Church’s understanding of the Bible as historical document. The current understanding arose as a response to scientific criticism stemming from the Enlightenment and in my opinion has backed the church into unnecessary corners, ones that have us at times worshiping scripture more than God, or worse yet, science more than God. In this sense I don’t feel compelled to “rescue” anything, because I don’t recognize the threat as legitimate.
Third, I feel very strongly about the point I mentioned in my first post, the one about thinking this lack of total internal consistency is purposeful on God’s part. The older I get, the more I’m conviced that God didn’t want us searching the scriptures trying to ferrett out our salvation like Pharisees (or scientists of religion). I think He very much wants the Bible to lead us to Him, which it does effectively, historically and Truthfully. This is what has been affirmed by the church throughout all generations since Christ, and this was the guiding principle behind the Canon as we know it. Innerancy was a very late addition, and a harmful one at that.
Understanding this engenders humility and openness to the mystery of God’s interaction with man, and frees us from having to fight over every lit scrap of scripture so that we can focus on leading others to Christ who is the true Word of God.
Todd,
The Message is a “swing and a miss.” You’re just trying to be provocative.
As for the new format, what’s with the two lady bugs at the bottom left of the comment submission box? Is this another effort to be provocative?
Finally, when are you coming back and do you want to use this while I’m gone?
Grena:
On #1 – I didn’t say that any verse or paragraph in the Message was “superior” to other English translations. I simply said that I am reading it through currently and find it interesting and beneficial. I like its “different-ness” – I read the Bible a lot and this version is very readable and provokes my thinking in different ways. It captures the “essence” (or “message”) of the text in a striking way. I could easily speak about the problems in it, but most people in my crowd (i.e., my blog readers) probably don’t need me to point those out. Frankly, I don’t care if I convert you or anyone else. I simply mentioned that I was reading it.
On #2 – You need to ask someone else. I can answer some questions, but not that one.
For the record, I’m immune to presure! My priorities are determined by things other than blog comments :-).
Stratkey – I disagree with a number of things but am not sure I have the time or energy to put together a response. I will say that I think that the idea that the Bible is True but not true is a possibility only recently conceived by modern man. You say that inerrancy takes you away from God, and I say that without inerrancy the road to God will soon be going a different direction (and history is bearing this out). We both have thought about our positions a lot, and a significant amount of discussion (especially online) probably won’t move either of us very much.
There was a column posted on the internet a day or two ago that I think you would find stimulating. I have spent some time recently with the author and like him a good bit (but without further study I am not going to state whether or not I agree with this article). He has thought a lot about this and since I’m disappointing you with this (non-)response, perhaps I can win back a point or two by recommending this: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4200
Craig:
Actually, the most thing “provocative” is your comment that it was a “swing and a miss.” I really am reading The Message, and I really am finding it worthwhile. If it’s the only version you’ll read through, then I wouldn’t recommend it. But when you’re moving through 7 chapters or more a day and have read through the Bible many times before, it’s a nice change. As far as “non-approved,” yes, I confess that I was trying to elicit a smile from those with the right backgrounds.
The ladybugs came with the template. I’m not really a ladybug guy, but I haven’t gotten around to removing them. And they add a little color to an otherwise pretty straightforward template.
Soon and yes!
Todd, points taken; well said. Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of your original statement.
Todd- I don’t know if it is just my slow dial-up, or my computer, or your comments section, but the longer comments are getting cut off and I am unable to make any sense of them. In other words, the sentences don’t make sense because on the right hand side they are cut off. Is this something you could fix?
Thanks Todd. I appreciated that lengthy article, and the gracious spirit in which it was written. Your friend is very wise, and though I may not agree with him fully, he outlines a program within which all of us believers can affirm the evidence and truthfulness of the text, without perhaps agreeing upon all the nuances each of us what to attribute to it. Very helpful.
Ilena – usually a problem like that would be caused by the browser (as far as I know). I’ve checked it on both Internet Explorer and Firefox and it looks fine. Perhaps you’re using a different browser, or maybe another reader has an idea.
After I read ilena’s message, I noticed the same problem when I resized my IE 6.0 window. I suspect it may have been a temporary error on the part of the server–maybe it could not retrieve the ladybug or some other image & didn’t know how far to space the text. In any case, it looks fine now. Just like “Errors in the Bible”, the problems eventually disappeared. Maybe ilena can check again.