23rdSeptember
Is the Bible accurate?
Categories: accuracy, errors, bibliology, Bible | 2007 | by Ken Horn | 4 commentsMy professor says it is a fact that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions. Why should I read such a faulty book?
My Harvard professor said Exodus 37:17-24, which describes sevenfold lamps, was in error because such lamps did not exist in Moses’ time. Later I took part in an archaeological expedition in Dothan in Israel and watched workmen uncover a sevenfold lamp dating from 1400 B.C., right from Moses’ time.
Critics once said the Hittites never existed because the Greeks and Egyptians didn’t mention them. Then a whole Hittite civilization was discovered. The Greeks and Egyptians did mention them but got the name so twisted no one recognized it. The Bible had it right.
That did not satisfy the critics. They said, “That may be true, but the Horites are fiction.” Others said Sargon never existed. Some even said King David never existed. But Horites were proved to be the same as Hurrians. Sargon’s palace has been excavated. Recently, an ancient inscription was discovered that mentions David’s name and kingdom.
Again and again the Bible has been proved true. It is the critics who are in error due to their unbelief and insufficient knowledge.
Other supposed errors include chronological difficulties caused because the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all used different systems of measuring time or dating. One cause of apparent contradictions is that one passage may use round numbers; another may give the exact figure, depending on the purpose of the writer.
Most of the errors critics talk about are copyists’ errors. Because the books of the Bible were copied by hand it was easy to make spelling mistakes, misread a word, or leave out a word or a line. By comparing the many ancient copies that have been discovered, scholars can determine the original reading in the vast majority of cases. These cases where we can’t be sure are mostly differences in spelling or word order. None of them affect the teachings of the Bible in any way.
Remember also that the Bible uses everyday language because it was written for the common people, not for scientists. Actually, scientific language did not develop until modern times. Most of us still use the language of appearance, just as the Bible does. Who says, “What a beautiful earthset,” even though we know that it is the earth’s turning that causes the sunset?
The Bible is a wonderful revelation of God and His plan. It will not lead us astray.
For more on this subject, see Bible Doctrines by Menzies and Horton (Logion Press). Visit the original Web page.
Stanley M. Horton
The Bible has to be inaccurate as the AG denomination allows women to be pastors and deacons, so what they say does not match the actions of the AG.
What did Jesus do? Chose men
What did God say in Acts 6? Choose men
What does Timothy and Titus say about roles? If a man….
Oh well, what the bible teaches really doesn’t matter in a politcally, socially, and religiously correct society.
It is interesting that austute scholors of the word can concusively PROVE either the position for OR against women in ministry, using Scripture. Read either case and the evidence seems compelling…if you read with a rational mindset. I don’t know what that may say to some, but it says to me that I better be a bit careful about taking a mean spirited, dogmatic position either way.
Then, given the need to “rightly divide the word of truth,” I find it necessary to look for pragmatic factors that will tip the scales for me in favor of one or the other of these two divergent, but equally compelling arguments. I have to ask:
1. Has a woman ever occupied a position of ministry where the world has seen that ministry bear fruit that is unmistakably anointed of God? The answer for me is yes. I have read enough church history to be convinced that women have played a key role in the advancement of the Kingdom (capital “K”).
2. Are there changing cultural norms that have “changed” the definition of Scriptural terms? Again, for me, the answer is yes. For instance 1 Tim 2:9 addresses the need for modesty in women’s dress. That term held vastly different expectations as recently as a few decades ago. Modesty is still required, but it looks different now that women’s ankles are not taboo. In the attending verses of this passage, was Paul advancing the inherent law of God, or was he commanding that women should not conduct themselves in a way that would be contrary to Roman law of the time? It was legal under Roman law for men to interrupt a speaker, but not for women. If that were still the law, I would oppose women in public ministry too.
3. Is there any recorded historical pattern that shows where women in ministry have repeatedly hindered revival movements? I don’t think so. Maybe isolated cases, but fewer recorded occasions than of men doing the same.
So, is it not wisdom to allow experience to guide us into truth when evidence in Scripture seems to validate both positions? It certainly seems to be preferable to searching out scripture to support a preconceived bias. We were instructed to work out our salvation through fear and trembling, not through the effective arguments of pundits with preconceived notions.
Finally, is the role of women in ministry so cardiac that we should allow it to divide us as God-fearing ambassadors of the Gospel? Will the world be won more quickly if we polarize the body of Christ around such an imponderable difference of opinion? Is there not a place to agree on the lostness of man and focus on correcting that. Can we just agree to disagree on inconsequential details and get on with the eternal business of the church? I genuinely hope so.
Someone has already posted something similar to what I would reply. I guess there are some that still hold to the authenticity of God’s Word
I re-read the last paragraph about being cardiac and inconsequential details. I believe that every word that God has provided for us is important enough to me that the Bible is not a book of inconsequential details to me.