Explaining Anomalies: Alleged Contradictions in the Bible

One area that I have never gotten a good answer and am convinced more and more that it might be a translation error is the number of Israelites who left Egypt. The numbers are just too large. The fear that the Bible says was present in the Israelites as they fled Pharoah's armies or the fear on entering Cannan doesn't seem realistic given the number of people present in the Israelite Exodus. Eleph is not a clear term in Hebrew. If the numbers are accurate in our English translation, that would equate to a potential of 2 Million Israelites leaving Egypt. Why would an army that could have consisted of 600,000 men be concerned about a city like Jericho with a population of 2,000 to 3,000 people. The circumference of the wall around Jericho was 2,325 feet, which meant that the men of Israel could have wrapped around the wall 258 times.

This question lays bare two different conceptions of inerrancy:

1. The Hodge-Warfield “Old Princeton” school that eventually culminated in the Chicago Statement, which emphasizes inerrant autographs and seeks to resolve issues like this. See, for example, Lindsell’s Battle for the Bible.
2. A gentler school that doesn’t bother to try to reconcile these things because silly errors like this are inevitable when humans are involved in things, and says the Bible is inerrant and infallible in that it will infallibly reveal Christ, the Gospel, and the information necessary for life and godliness, in conjunction with and illuminated by the Spirit.

My sympathies lie with the latter, typified by James Orr in his Revelation and Inspiration. I recently received the Rogers/McKim book and am looking forwarding to reading it. I’m aware of the rejoinder that was issued a few years later. I’ve heard about this controversy from afar, but am looking forward to reading the book itself.

Gary Dorrien (a self-identifying liberal scholar) wrote a wonderful book 25 years ago titled The Remaking of Evangelical Theology that is very good reading for any pastor in our orbit, especially because it’s a respectful survey from an outsider looking in. Dorrien covers this issue in some detail.

TylerR wrote:

1. A gentler school that doesn’t bother to try to reconcile these things because silly errors like this are inevitable when humans are involved in things, and says the Bible is inerrant and infallible in that it will infallibly reveal Christ, the Gospel, and the information necessary for life and godliness, in conjunction with and illuminated by the Spirit.

This is basically classic liberalism, right?

Either all scripture is God-breathed or it is not. We don't get to pick and choose which portions come from the mouth of God and thus inerrant, and which portions come from the hand of man and thus fallible. Scripture is clear that God used human instruments, guided by the Holy Spirit, to give us an inerrant, trustworthy, pure, and truthful message in whole and in part. Where does scripture teach that only a part of his word given to us would conform to his character?

That doesn't mean there are not difficulties or things hard to explain given our limited knowledge. It does mean, when everything is finally known, misunderstandings corrected, and all translation and copying mistakes resolved, that we will see that the way God breathed out his word to us was perfect, true, and without error.

No, James Orr’s position is not liberalism. If you wish to see liberalism, Gary Dorrien has written a trilogy on that perspective. James Orr contributed several articles to “The Fundamentals,” and was a staunch conservative. I believe you are conflating a particular articulation of inerrancy with an alleged orthodoxy. You either know the primary literature and believe other perspectives are wrong, or you are relying on inaccurate characterizations from people you trust. I’m not sure which is the case here. My point is that there are good options other than (1) Chicago Statement, or (2) a supposed “liberalism,” and I want to emphasize this strongly.

For trustworthy, friendly treatments of this issue, see Erickson’s discussion about different conceptions of inerrancy, or James L. Garrett’s discussion of the same in his systematic. See also Mike Bird’s discussion in the Zondervan inerrancy book (cf. the Lausanne Covenant, Article 2).

TylerR wrote: No, James Orr’s position is not liberalism. If you wish to see liberalism, Gary Dorrien has written a trilogy on that perspective. James Orr contributed several articles to “The Fundamentals,” and was a staunch conservative. You are conflating a particular articulation of inerrancy with an alleged orthodoxy. You either know the primary literature and believe other perspectives are wrong, or you are relying on inaccurate characterizations from people you trust. I’m not sure which is the case here.

If this is James Orr's position, then I question his fundamentalist bona fides.

I certainly believe that my understanding of inerrancy is what the Bible teaches about itself. To say "silly errors like this are inevitable when humans are involved" doesn't sound like any valid form of orthodoxy to me. Are you able to articulate how that could be valid, given verbal plenary inspiration? I suppose I could go find those books to find out what they have to say but I'd rather not have to do that.

I don’t have time to do that here. Erickson’s summary is helpful. If you prefer Chicago style inerrancy, no worries. My main point is that to believe “orthodoxy = Chicago or bust” is to be captive to a provincial perspective in the sweep of global, believing Christianity. That’s not to say it’s wrong or “bad,” but it is provincial.

What I see in Erickson are these versions of inerrancy (very roughly summarized):

1. Absolute -- all scientific and historical details are true and inerrant

2. Full - similar to above but allows for approximations, scientific/historical references may be phenomenal -- i.e., reported as observed by humans

Note-I view 1 and 2 as basically the same

3. Limited -- inerrant only in it's salvific doctrinal references

4. Inerrancy of purpose -- but not in facts necessarily

5. Accommodated revelation -- Bible comes to us with shortcomings of human nature in historical, scientific, and religious views.

6. Bible is non-propositional and not revelation. The Bible contains errors but these are not the words of God.

7. Inerrancy is irrelevant issue

If what you wrote earlier is Orr's position, that sounds like version 3.

I view anything other than 1 or 2 as unorthodox and a departure from sola scriptura, even if some Christians believe them, as I don't believe they reflect the Biblical teaching of scripture concerning itself. Even Erickson says, “…the departure from belief in complete trustworthiness of the Bible is a very serious step, not only in terms of what it does to this one doctrine, but even more in terms of what happens to other doctrines as a result.”

Erickson is closer to Chicago-style. I think the spectrum he presents is accurate. I think the question which would prompt the subject of this article comes from a Chicago perspective. As Sproul noted, most alleged “errors” can be settled with reasonable harmonization. As for the rest, my reaction would be, “Why do you care and what does it matter?”

AndyE wrote:

What I see in Erickson are these versions of inerrancy (very roughly summarized):

1. Absolute -- all scientific and historical details are true and inerrant

2. Full - similar to above but allows for approximations, scientific/historical references may be phenomenal -- i.e., reported as observed by humans

Note-I view 1 and 2 as basically the same

I think #2 is better than #1 because you simply must excuse scientific non-understandings. The idea that the earth does not move, etc.

I also think you need to include in this that some of what we think of as hard numbers are probably code for general notions of amount. So "million" simply didn't mean 1,000,000 to the OT Hebrews. My impression is that in that culture, it meant "a really really lot that you can't really count." And it's possible that some numbers are sometimes meant to mean things like "enough" rather than a certain precise quantity.

Dan Miller wrote:

I think #2 is better than #1 because you simply must excuse scientific non-understandings. The idea that the earth does not move, etc.

To be honest, I don't really understand category 1 because I think you have to end up in category 2 if you are serious about dealing with some of these issues.

I always laugh, though, when I read the first "issue" raised by Erickson that those in #1 had to face. He writes:

For example, the description of the molten sea in 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicates that its diameter was 10 cubits while the circumference was 30 cubits. However, as well know, the circumference of a circle is pi (3.14159) times the diameter. If, as the biblical text says, the molten sea was circular, there is a discrepancy here, and an explanation must be given.

Since pi is irrational, every measurement of a true circle is an approximation, meaning both 3 and 3.14159 are approximates. Whoever complains about this as an error doesn't really understand math. It is also possible that the molten sea was not a true circle and the circumference was exactly 30 cubits.

Lindsell (who held a PhD) devoted significant attention to this very problem in his “Battle for the Bible.” Chicago-style inerrantists have long been troubled by the molten sea issue.

It's the measure from the tip of one's hand to the elbow, right?

AndyE wrote: For example, the description of the molten sea in 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicates that its diameter was 10 cubits while the circumference was 30 cubits. However, as well know, the circumference of a circle is pi (3.14

So this is true, so long as the guy measuring the circumference is slightly taller than the guy measuring the diameter.