THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLE DIFFICULTIES A REVIEW
Gleason W Archer’s Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (two editions considered
in this work) is one of the books at the forefront of religious systems that
allege that there is no error in the Bible for it is the word of God.
The book says, Evangelicals do not try to prove that the Bible has no mistakes
so that they can be sure the Bible is the Word of God. One might prove that a
newspaper article is free from all mistakes, but that would not prove that the
newspaper article is the Word of God. Christians hold the Bible to be the Word
of God (and inerrant) because they are convinced that Jesus, the Lord of the
church, believed it and taught His disciples to believe it. And ultimately their
conviction of its truth rests on the witness of the Holy Spirit. Likewise
evangelicals do not hold that inerrant inspiration eliminates the human element
in the production of the Bible. True, evangelicals have stressed the divine
authorship of Scripture because this is most frequently denied and it is this
that gives Scripture its unique importance. But informed evangelicals have
always insisted on a truly human authorship of Scripture. Even those who were
willing to use the word dictation (as did Calvin and the Tridentine Council of
the Roman Catholic church) always made very clear that they were not referring
to the model of a boss dictating to a stenographer. Rather, they meant to stress
the divine (as well as human) responsibility for the words of Scripture.
Comment: I agree that without God being the chooser of the words of scripture as
much as man is the idea of a divine and infallible Bible is not sustainable.
Verbal inspiration is the correct Christian position. Or it is the position that
the religion needs to take for anything else shouts, “Another man-made
religion!”
The logic of the book is very off. Let us look at it. Pages 21,25 are right to
observe that if you want to trust Jesus you have to believe in Adam and Eve as
historical beings and accept the historicity of the flood story in Genesis and
the manna in the desert and the episode where Jonah was swallowed by a fish and
lived to tell the tale. Jesus taught that these people and events were pure
history. Jesus could not have been a true prophet when he could not be right
about the past for prophets are supposed to be able to accurately foretell
future events which is harder than psychically gazing into the past for the past
existed and the future does not exist yet. There is no reason to think that
Jesus might have known the real facts for nobody did in those days.
The unfair thing about the Encyclopedia is that it ignores Bible stories and
teachings that controversially and obviously cast God and Bible devotees who
know about them in a very bad light. This reflects the Christian tendency to
hope that nobody notices that they are being selective in what they deal with
and then they have the nerve to lie saying the Bible is entirely wholesome.
Page 153 says that God was right to kill children in the Bible with the
intention of punishing their parents. It even dares to say that if the children
had lived they would have been as bad as their parents and so God was right to
get rid of them. And we are told that only God knows the potential of each soul.
This is putting the God you can’t see before the children you can see and that
is callous and many Atheists find it disgusting.
Page 160 states that when Joshua built an altar in disobedience to Deuteronomy
12 which specified that only the altar in the tabernacle was to be used he did
right for Exodus 20 says that God said that wherever the people are God will
come to them and bless them. Archer is lying through his teeth. The Exodus verse
does not support what Joshua did. And Joshua claimed to have had God’s blessing
on his altar and Joshua was a prophet so he must have been a false prophet.
Moses falls with Joshua for he was the one who made him prophet and leader.
False prophets make false prophets.
God enticed Samson to wed Delilah (Judges 14:4) despite the fact that God
regarded this marriage as immoral for she was of a pagan persuasion (page 166).
Archer says that God did not approve of the marriage but made Samson attracted
to her so that he would marry her and God could take advantage of the sin. This
is highly immoral. And Catholics say that Judges only means that God used Satan
to fulfil his plan but since nobody believed in the Devil then when Judges says
it was God it was God.
Religion teaches that we cannot understand God and our description of him and
his ways is more like a parable than a description for we don’t understand what
we are saying. The Hebrews had no concept of the this idea that language about
God was univocal or symbolic or just to express roughly an idea that was so far
beyond anybody’s understanding that it only needed to be said avoid saying
nothing at all. Catholics say that they call God love but they do not know what
this means so calling him love is univocal language. Yet this later
philosophical idea is used as an excuse to cover up the blunders in such verses
as 1 Samuel 15:11 which has God saying he is sorry he ever made Saul king of
Israel though it could not have been meant univocally. Archer tries something
different (page 174). He says God did say he regretted it but then contradicts
himself and says it does not mean he did not know beforehand what Saul would
turn out like! The way the word for regret fits into the context shows that he
cannot pretend it means something different from regret.
Page 181 says that the true account of Saul’s death is in 1 Samuel 31 and the
account that contradicts it is in 2 Samuel 1 and that the latter can contradict
it for it is only an inspired record of what an Amalekite man who may not have
been reliable reported about Saul’s death. But would the man’s testimony be in
the book if it were not accepted? This Encyclopaedia speculates that it might
not be even though that is what books that pretend to be history like 2 Samuel
or are history need – history is an interpretation and evaluation of testimony.
Several times the Encyclopaedia “solves” contradictions by blaming the errors of
copyists – errors for which there is no evidence. See page 169, which admits
that 50,000 in Bethshemesh in 1 Samuel 6:19 is too many and blames this on a
copyist’s mistake. But what right has anybody to say the Bible is infallible in
all it says when these contradictions could have been in the originals?
Page 184. This says that when 2 Samuel 14:27 says Absalom was a father of three
sons and one daughter and 2 Samuel 18:18 says he had none there is no conflict
for the children probably died in infancy though the Bible does not tell us if
they did die. But one would expect the book to tell us that for writers avoid
seeming contradictions like that. It is unlikely that four royal children could
die young. Absalom died in a manner similar to that described in Psalm 22 though
Archer wants to pretend that this psalm described the death of Jesus before it
happened for a God who knows the future wrote it.
Page 205. Elisha is defended against the accusation that he lied to the army of
Syria and misled them when they were looking for him in 2 Kings 6. Elisha told
the army that he would lead them to Elisha thus meaning that he was not Elisha
and that Elisha was not in the area though he was yet Archer pretends that he
was not lying but telling the truth for he never said he was not Elisha and he
was right to tell them they would not find Elisha in the city for they were all
outside the city. But Elisha said more than just that Elisha was not in the city
but that they were on the wrong track meaning he was nowhere near the city
though he was. Also, when the army were that easily misled and by one man the
story is doubtful. No army would be that dumb. No army would have expected
Elisha to stay in any town when they were coming for they were numerous and he
would have had time to get away. The army would have used spies to apprehend him
so there was no need for them threatening any towns. Elisha asked God to
disguise him so that he could talk to the men instead of asking God to let him
escape and making the men receive a message based on understanding that Elisha
was somewhere else. Thus Elisha did wrong for he wanted the stage set for his
lies to be told. Even if it were not lies but just using the truth to make the
guys mislead themselves he still did wrong for the Church says that this is
wrong except in cases of extreme necessity. Elisha should have just left by the
back of the town.
Page 242. Here, on the basis of Psalm 5:5 and 11:5 the view that God loves
sinners but hates their sins is rejected. Good King Jehoshaphat was condemned by
the Lord through a prophet for being kind to sinful King Ahab though what help
he gave was entirely harmless (2 Chronicles 19:2). We are told that God hates
sinners as sinners but loves them only in the sense that he tries to change
them. Really it means he does not love them but just wants to change them so
that he will love them. We all wish our enemies could make us happy by changing.
We hate them because we want to change them. This is disturbing stuff and
implies that Christians should only love one another in the real sense and
disparage everyone else. The Bible must teach this when Gleason W Archer
believes it for if anybody would know it would be him.
If people really believed in love the sinner and hate the sin they would see the
sin as something like an infection that is not part of the person. At most you
see sin as external to a person or even as a mistake. Why are we not talking
about mistakes? Because we don't see sin as a mistake but as a sign of what a
person is - bad and deliberately dangerous in some area.
Page 271. Though it cannot be proved that the bits in Isaiah which name King
Cyrus allegedly before he became king and before he was even born and got
involved in Israel’s affairs were really written before the events it is claimed
that he was indeed named and foreseen. That is credulity.
Page 293. The fact that Daniel predicts things that show it has a knowledge of
what happened during the 160’s BC meaning that was when it was written or edited
for the final time is rejected for Daniel prophesied some things accurately
after that time and things that did not happen for centuries after Christ. But
the prophecies that fit the period of composition are more detailed than the
future ones which have been variously interpreted and can even be fitted to
predicting the coming of the papacy as antichrist.
Page 275. This says that if Jeremiah had ever prophesied wrongly he would not
have got into the Jewish Canon of scripture. This is used to argue that his
dubious prediction of an unlikely invasion of Egypt by Babylon must have been
fulfilled. But lots of books with errors are considered canonical all over the
world. Look at the blunders of the Book of Mormon for instance.
Page 404 makes out that when Paul altered Psalm 68:18 for his Ephesians letter
it was not dishonesty for it was an interpretative translation. Archer would not
say that if it were not the Bible. The psalm gave no proof that it was messianic
and Paul altered to make it refer to Jesus and Archer says this was not
dishonest! If Paul had said that it was only his version I would not care but he
did not.
Can’t you see that the solutions the Christians offer could be used to resolve
any contradiction in any scripture and then they turn around and maintain that
the lack of contradiction in the Bible means it has to be God’s word?
CONCLUSION
All attempts to prove that the Bible is the word of God fail because the Bible
contradicts itself and attempts to hide this are stupid, irresponsible and are
fabricated. Disgusting is the only way to describe such determined efforts
to defend and promote and use for worship such a twisted volume as if the blood
splatters on it do not count.