In a continuing quest for the truth I have spent a great deal of time over the last several months discussing Biblical contradictions with Christians. During our conversations, the Biblical defenders adopt one of three positions. Some refuse to acknowledge that the Bible contains contradictions even when presented with proof. Others acknowledge contradictory passages as problematic and attempt to provide explanations to reconcile them. A third group acknowledges the contradiction but maintain that they do not affect their belief and are therefore irrelevant. It is this third group and their approach that I wish to examine today.
The Bible contains (at least) three different types of content:
- Statements of fact that can be tested.
- Statements of fact that cannot be tested.
- Statements of doctrine that are to be accepted and believed.
The first type includes historical events such as large-scale population events and the reigns of various kings. These events can be cross-checked using historical and archaeological data. Miracles and supernatural events are the second type of content, statements of fact that cannot be tested. Archaeological data cannot confirm such events, and there are no extant historical accounts that attest their historicity. Finally, statements regarding the existence of heaven and hell, the soul, and the eternal state of man are doctrinal statements that readers are expected to accept at face-value.
Most Biblical contradictions are found in the first category of content. They deal with natural events that can be tested and verified such as genealogies or the reigns of kings. Because these matters are usually unrelated to the bigger matters of faith, some Christians feel that they can be safely dismissed. One such believer put it this way:
“My thought is that we could all spend time going over every word over and over and miss our calling which is to Love God with all our heart soul and mind and love our neighbor as ourselves.” –Amy S., 6/19/09
This approach is flawed because it fails to verify the authenticity of the Bible. It accepts the Bible’s vaunted status as “God’s Word” without subjecting it to the type of reason that we apply to all claims of the supernatural. When we encounter a person claiming the ability to channel the dead or predict the future, we are naturally skeptical. We either reject their claims out-of-hand, or demand proof. By nature of the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God, it is reasonable to expect it to prove itself in the mundane matters of history. It is only by proving of the historical accuracy of the Bible that Christians are confident in its doctrinal predictions for the future.
Let me say that again: The only way a Christian can expect the Bible to be right about the future is by knowing it is right about the past.
It is for this reason that Biblical contradictions matter. Since the Bible has internal errors regarding matters of historicity, it cannot be regarded as authoritative in its future predictions. By choosing to ignore such problems, many Christians are trusting a house that lacks a firm foundation.