SECTION II
Chapter 14 - Some Conservative Christian Responses on Apparent
        Contradictions Within the Bible.

   The previous chapters have given hard evidence of errors and contradictions
that exist in the Bible.  This chapter presents how some RELIGIOUS writers 
have responded to charges of biblical inerrancy.  Obviously responses vary 
from individual to individual--ranging from religious writers who believe 
that at least SOME myths have indeed entered into the gospel stories, to 
those that believe that there is ABSOLUTELY no contradictions to be found 
in the Bible!

   There are many LIBERAL-minded Christians who admit that at least some 
myths have entered into the Bible--but have faith anyway regarding the
divinity of Jesus.  Not infrequently, this group interprets the stories of
the bible allegorically--as symbolizing great truths for mankind. This group
also tends to stress Jesus' Golden Rule, in the spirit of love and brotherhood
for ALL people on earth.  

 It is conservatives and fundamentalists who dogmatically issue "declarations 
of faith" regarding the inerrancy of the Bible. As many conservatives accept 
the inerrancy of the Bible as a matter of faith, some feel that it is 
unnecessary to address charges of inerrancy--other than to INSIST that 
discrepancies "simply do NOT exist."

   I did locate two sources that discussed the topic of inerrancy. One 
source comes from C.S. Lewis and his honest reflection on the seeming 
contradictions within the Bible.  I was drawn to the fundamentalist Josh 
McDowell because of his insistence that he had "proof" that there were no
real contradictions in the Bible. We shall be looking at the positions of 
both of these individuals in this chapter.

Religious Response to Biblical Criticism--Moderate to Conservative Position

  C.S. Lewis represents an individual who has taken a moderate to
conservative position in regards to biblical inerrancy. In his REFLECTION
OF THE PSALMS, C.S Lewis wrote on some of the honest difficulties he found 
within the texts of the Bible.  Still, he remained convinced to the end that
"God must have done what is best".

According to Lewis:

  "We may observe that the teaching of Our Lord Himself, in which there is
  imperfection, is not given us in that cut-and-dried, fool-proof, systematic
  fashion we might have expected or desired.  He wrote no book.  We have
  only reported sayings, most of them uttered in answer to questions, shaped
  to some degree by their context. And when we have collected them all we
  cannot reduce them to a system.  He preaches but He does not lecture. He
  uses paradox, proverb, exaggeration, parable, irony; even (I mean no
  irreverence) the 'wisecrack'. He utters maxims which, like popular proverbs,
  if rigorously taken, may seem to contradict one another.  His teaching
  therefore cannot be grasped by the intellect alone, cannot be 'got up' as
  if it were a 'subject'.  If we try to do that with it, we shall find Him
  the most elusive of teachers.  He hardly ever gave a straight answer to
  a straight question.  He will not be, in the way we want, 'pinned down'.
  The attempt is (again, I mean no irreverence) like trying to bottle a
  sunbeam.

  "Descending lower, we find a somewhat similar difficulty with St. Paul.
  I cannot be the only reader who has wondered why God, having given him so
  many gifts, withheld from him (what would to us seem so necessary for the
  first Christian theologian) that of lucidity and orderly exposition.

   "Thus on three levels, in appropriate degrees, we meet the same refusal
  of what we might have thought best for us--in the Word Himself, in the
  Apostle of the Gentiles, in Scripture as a whole.  Since this is what
  God has done, this we must conclude, was best.  It may be that what we should
  have liked would have been fatal to us if granted...

  "But of course [any] conjectures as to why God does what He does are
  probably of no more value than my dog's ideas of what I am up to when
  I sit and read.  But though we can only guess the reasons, we can at least
  observe the consistency, of His ways. We read in GENESIS(2,7) that God
  formed man of the dust and breathed life into him.  For all the first
  writer knew of it, this passage might merely illustrate the survival, even
  in a truly creational story, of the Pagan inability to conceive true
  Creation, the savage, pictorial tendency to imagine God making things
  'out of' something as the potter or the carpenter does.  Nevertheless,
  whether by lucky accident or (as I think) by God's guidance, it embodies
  a profound principle..." (CS Lewis, REFLECTIONS ON THE PSALMS taken from
  THE INSPIRATIONAL WRITINGS OF CS LEWIS, Inspirational Press, 1984,pp 189-90)

  In summary, C.S. Lewis acknowledged that the New Testament does not
contain a "fool-proof, systematic" set of doctrines.  Yet he believed we
should still have faith because God has an ultimate reason for doing
what He does.  According to C.S. Lewis, the real problem is that our small,
finite minds are incapable of understanding the infinite, vast mind of God.
(I have included an account of C.S. Lewis conversion to Christianity, and a
short biography of his life and works, in Section X, Chapter 3).

Religious Response to Biblical Criticism--Conservative Position

  Other, more conservative Christian scholars and writers have taken a
different position than C.S. Lewis on the subject of biblical inerrancy--
arguing strongly that the Bible is 100% accurate! Probably one of the more
popular books on this subject has been Josh McDowell's A READY DEFENSE,
which contains chapters on both Christian and non-Christian doctrines.

  I was particularly drawn to McDowell's book because of its promise
(on the back cover) that his book:

   "... helps you understand and defend your Christian beliefs like no other
    resource!"

   Intrigued, I read through his book looking eagerly at what support he
provided for such a claim. Such a strong claim (or so I thought) should be 
supported by equally strong evidence. I have summarized much of McDowell's 
"evidence" below for the reader's review:

Josh McDowell's "A READY DEFENSE"

  According to McDowell, ALL biblical miracles should be accepted as
absolutely true.  As proof, McDowell points to Genesis 1:1's famous
introduction,

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

  According to McDowell, if this verse can be believed, then every other
CHRISTIAN miracle is "not only possible but expected":

  "If this verse [Genesis 1:1] can be accepted at face value, that in
  the beginning an infinite-personal God actually did create the universe,
  then the rest should not be a problem.  If He has the ability to do this,
  then a virgin birth, walking on water, feeding 5,000 people with a few
  loaves and fish, and other biblical miracles, become not only possible
  but expected." (McDowell, SECTION 1, Chapter 10, A READY DEFENSE, op. cit)

  As to certain contradictions noted by religious and nonreligious scholars
on passages on the New and Old Testament, McDowell makes his position
on biblical inerrancy perfectly clear and unequivocal:

  "Certain [Christian biblical] passages at first glance can appear
  to be contradictory, but further investigation will show this is not the
  case." (SECTION I, Chapter 12, "What About All Those Contradictions")

  To prove his point, McDowell gives us some examples of contradictions in
the Bible, which he then "solves" for us. I have summarized below ALL of
the examples given by McDowell in his book:

  *Judges 5:25-27 states that Jael slew Sisera with her hammer and tent peg
while he was drinking milk.  According to Judges 4:21, Sisera was asleep.
A closer reading, per McDowell, shows that he was perhaps not really drinking
the milk.

  *According to Acts 9:7, Paul's conversion experience is described as
follows: "The men which journeyed with him [Paul] stood speechless, hearing
a voice, but seeing no man."  According to Acts 22:9 (KJV) we are told,
"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but
they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me." According to McDowell
scholars such as W.F. Arndt have explained this seeming contradiction whether
the travelers heard the voice, or saw anything as follows: "The construction
of the verb "to hear" (akouo) is not the same in both accounts." That is,
the difference might be that the travelers with Paul heard sounds, but
these might have appeared as unintelligible to them.

  * According to Matthew, Judas Iscariot threw away his thirty pieces of
silver in fulfillment of the prophecy by Jeremiah. In fact it was
Zechariah (11:12-13) that gave this prediction.  McDowell shows that
Matthew's account was in actuality a composite of both Jeremiah and
Zechariah, and that Matthew possibly thought it necessary to mention just
the one writer.

  *In Matthew 27:5, we are told that Judas "went away and hanged himself".
while in Acts 1:18 we are told that "falling headlong, he burst open".
Obviously, BOTH events could have happened--that is Judas was hanged, and
then the branch could have fallen down on some jagged rocks, which tore his
body apart.

  *McDowell points out that there is an apparent discrepancy between Matthew
12:40 which states that Jesus remained in the tomb for "three days and
nights" whereas other passages state that he would RISE ON THE THIRD DAY.
(Matthew 12:40, Mark 3:31, Matthew 16:21 and John 2:19-22) That is, was
Jesus raised on the THIRD day, or on the FOURTH day? According to McDowell,
these two passages can be reconciled because the phrases "after three days"
and "on the third day" are "simply idiomatic, interchangeable terms, a
common mode of Jewish expression."

 *According to McDowell, religious writers such as Ian Wilson who state
that the resurrection accounts are impossible to reconcile have "studied
the accounts only superficially".  THE ONE EXAMPLE that McDowell gives is
where John states that Mary Magdalene had arrived at the tomb by herself--
whereas Matthew indicates that she was accompanied by "Mary the mother
of James and Joseph." Obviously, per McDowell this apparent contradiction
can be easily resolved if we consider that both Mary's were present--but
John only CHOSE to report on Mary Magdalene.

                       * * *

  Unfortunately McDowell has ignored more DIFFICULT discrepancies of the Bible,
(as if by answering the simple ones, he hopes the complex ones will go away.)
As shall be pointed out in a later chapter, to be rational/scientific, one
must look at ALL of the facts--ie NOT ignoring any facts that would disprove
one's position. (See Section XI, Chapter 1).  For if one can "cherry-pick"
among just the verses one wants to see, one can ALMOST prove or disprove--
anything. (Also see Popper's "falsification" test discussed in Section VIII,
Chapters 1 and 3).

  Next, we shall review what McDowell considers to be an important PROOF
that Jesus is the Lord God--what he calls his "TRILEMMA" proof.

McDowell's "Trilemma": Was Jesus a "Liar", a "Lunatic", or the "Lord" God?

  One of the most dramatic sections in McDowell's book A READY DEFENSE, is
his "Trilemma" proof.--This proof states that there can ONLY be three
alternatives regarding the TRUE nature of Jesus.  That is, Jesus must either
be:

  (1) A "Liar",
  (2) a "Lunatic" or
  (3) the "Lord" himself.

 There are simply no other possibilities!

  From this basic premise, McDowell's reasoning proceeds as follows:

  (1) Obviously Jesus was NOT a liar, because according to McDowell:

   "Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught,
   and died as Jesus died could not have been a liar"!

   (2) On the other hand, according to McDowell, Jesus was obviously NOT
crazy:

  "it's hard to imagine that He was mentally disturbed.  Here is a man who
  spoke some of the most profound sayings ever recorded.  His instructions
  have liberated many individuals from mental bondage."  McDowell also
  quotes from Clark H. Pinnock: "Was He deluded about His greatness, a
  paranoid, an unintentional deceiver, a schizophrenic?  Again, the skill
  and depth of His teachings support the case only for His total mental
  soundness.  If only we were as sane as He!"

  (3)  The conclusion?  Obviously since Jesus was NEITHER a "liar" nor a
"lunatic", then:

  "he MUST be the Christ, the Son of God, as He claimed." (emphasis mine,
 Page 244)

  McDowell is very determined that there can ONLY be three choices!  He
relates how when he discusses his trilemma "with most Jewish people" they
almost always agree that Jesus was a good, moral, upright, and sane prophet.
However, after McDowell leads them carefully through his reasoning,
they STILL refuse to take the next logical step, and acknowledge that
he is therefore God!

  According to McDowell, this is unacceptable -- afterall "one only has
so many choices"! (p 245)

Application of the "Trilemma" Theory to the World's Major Religions

     Since McDowell, in the same book (A READY DEFENSE), also describes other 
major world religions--ie Islam, Buddhism, and Confucism.  I determined to 
see how McDowell applied his trilemma to the leaders of these great NON-
Christian religions. Unfortunately McDowell does not apply his "trilemma" 
logic DIRECTLY himself.  Yet he drops plenty of clues, so that the interested 
reader can easily piece these together.

  Remember the rules, though, for McDowell's "trilemma"--if the founders are
NOT "Liars", nor "Lunatics", then by McDowell's definition, they MUST also be 
considered a god!


 --Islam

    In reviewing Islam, one would think that since Mohammed NEVER claimed
to be a God (but clearly designated himself as a prophet), that McDowell
would go a little easy on him. Not so!  McDowell strongly hints that
Muhammad, the founder of Islam--falls under the "Lunatic" category:

    First, McDowell quotes from a source that tells us: "There is evidence
in a tradition which can scarcely have been fabricated that Muhammad
suffered in early life from FITS." (emphasis mine). Also, according to
McDowell, when Muhammad began having visions at the age of 40, he "was
at first unsure of the source of these visions, whether divine or demonic".
(p 304)

    McDowell concludes that the doctrine of Islam is less inspired and
profound than Christianity, stating that Islam:

  "is ultimately unfulfilling. The Islamic God of strict judgment,
   Allah, cannot offer the mercy, love, or ultimate sacrifice on
   mankind's behalf that the Christian God, incarnate in Jesus Christ,
   offers to each individual even today." (p 313)

 --Confucism

    Regarding Confucism, McDowell gets around the issue of Confucius'
divinity by arguing that Confucianism is NOT a religion, but instead
primarily an "ethical system teaching man how to get along with his
fellow man."(p 290) This is fortunate, because based on a reading of
Confuscious' background, it is apparent that Confucious was NEITHER a
"liar" nor a "lunatic"!

 --Buddhism

    The Buddha presents more of a problem for McDowell.   First of all,
McDowell acknowledges early on that the Buddha was not a "liar"! Indeed,
the young Buddha had renounced his former wealthy princely life, and
embraced a life of poverty in his search for wisdom and enlightenment.

    Likewise, it would be difficult to argue that the Buddha was a
"lunatic" for the same reason Jesus Christ was not.  That is, he taught
great moral precepts which had a profound impact on millions of people
in the East. McDowell himself relates how Buddhists preached the following
commandments (note the strong comparisons to the Ten Commandments):

  "(1) Kill no living thing (including insects).
   (2) Do not steal.
   (3) Do not commit adultery.
   (4) Tell no lies.
   (5) Do not drink intoxicants or take drugs"

    Monks and nuns are further exhorted to eat moderately, avoid excitement
to the senses, to not wear adornments, not sleep in luxurious beds, and
not to accept gold or silver. (Ibid, p 279-80)

  Since the Buddha is neither a "liar" nor a "lunatic", one would expect
McDowell to apply his own rules and proclaim the Buddha (like Jesus) a god.  
But McDowell has obviously anticipated this argument, and thus includes the
following caveat:

"... in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories
arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama".
(p277)

This concept is so important, McDowell repeats it again a few pages later:

   "Some time after his death, the Buddha was deified by some of his
    followers, even though veneration of the Buddha is against the basic
    teachings of Buddha himself." (p 279)

    It should be obvious to the reader what has happened here!  That is,
McDowell has for the Buddha, set up NOT THREE --but FOUR alternatives.
(Or, instead of a TRILEMMA, he has basically posed a QUADLEMMA!)

  Since Confucious was excluded, because he apparently did not set up a
"real religion", we could probably also add this to our list of alternatives,
expanding our QUADLEMMA into a five-way dilemma, or QUINTLEMMA!

  Therefore McDowell has used one set of criteria (the TRILEMMA) for
Christianity, and another (the QUINTLEMMA) for all non-Christian sects.
Applying the QUINTLEMMA towards Christianity would no longer absolutely
"prove" that Jesus was the Lord God.

Accuracy of the New Testament Bible(s).

  Another assertion made by McDowell in his book is that the New Testament
is very accurate compared to known ancient texts of the Bible. Unfortunately,
he only quotes other individuals who merely assert (on faith?) that this
is true--No concrete facts on the subject are given for the reader's review,
(that I could find.)

  The sources that I have available to me indicate that just the opposite is
true. That is, that a LARGE number of discrepancies HAVE been noted by 
theologians and scholars in the oldest known texts of the NEW TESTAMENT.
(See Section III, Chapter 2).

  The definition of "What is a discrepancy" is obviously important here.
Perhaps this is best seen by means of an analogy:  Let's say there was a 25
word sentence, and the word "NOT" was inserted so as to invert its meaning.
TECHNICALLY one might argue that there was only a 4% (ie 1/25) PHYSICAL
change made to the original text.  I would argue that there was a 100%
change in MEANING made to the original text.

  Discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that the OLD Testament
texts are very faithful to the original renditions (although different
variations of the Old Testament texts existed even at the early date of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, buried around 70 AD during the siege of Jerusalem
by the Romans.)

  However, the discovery of some of the world's oldest NEW Testament Bibles
has suggested that at least SOME tampering was going on by early Christian
scholars--who were of course probably just trying to "clarify" some
doctrinal matters for their congregations.

  Because of the complexity of this topic, a whole section has been devoted
to this--first starting with a history of biblical scholarly analysis on
the Old Testament, and then proceeding on to the New Testament.