A portion of Randy Ingermanson's original Facebook post:
​
But in the last ten years or so, I’ve found that evangelicals get really angry at Christians who accept that the Bible has mistakes in it. And it does have mistakes. Historical mistakes. Scientific mistakes. Moral failings.
My view is that the Bible is an ancient book that has helped move humanity forward. It’s a great book, worthy of respect and study, but it’s a collection of documents written by humans. Humans are fallible, and the Bible is not inerrant.
It doesn’t bother me that evangelicals want to believe in inerrancy. They can believe whatever they what. They have a right to be wrong. But what does bother me is the way they claim the moral high ground over Christians who reject inerrancy.
Sorry, no. There is no moral high ground in self-deception. Intellectual honesty matters.
​
Hi, Randy.
I’m going to start of by saying you’re a brave man. LOL Bringing up what appear to be inconsistencies in Scripture is certainly going to bring quite a bit of resistance. *waving* I’ll be one of these. But I’ll be kind about it. These objections are something that I’ve LOVED reading about, so I’ll be covering these topics as things in my wheelhouse.
Thanks for posting objections like these. You are not the only one to bring them up, but I’m wondering if you came up with these on your own as you read the Bible or if you’re making assumptions based on what others have said and written. (I know that sounds insulting, but that’s not intended. Just curious.)
I think it’s impossible to read the Bible in English and not see or imagine what seem to be conflicts. Your topics about the feeding of the thousands, the conflicts of the Passover meal, and the “Canaanite slaughter” certainly raise eyebrows. Your possible (I may be misreading this) assertion that Scripture, in Genesis, posits a “flat earth” … well, that’s a first for me.
The photo that I added is just to show that these are topics of great interest to me. This is a small portion of my library, but some of these have information that is relevant to the conversation at hand.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
I feel the need to expose my own view of the Bible so that you can accurately view my stances. I believe that the Bible is 100% accurate … in the original languages. I’m sure that you’d agree that each of the writers knew exactly what he observed and was not confused about details. That said, the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew do not allow for accurate one-word for one-word translation.
I believe that Luke, who was not an observer of the events of the Gospel that he wrote about, was a fantastic interviewer of those who had observed them. I keep in mind that his reasons for researching the life of Christ stemmed from what he heard and observed during his time with the former pharisee and opposer of the details of Christianity, Paul the evangelist.
There had to be a reason that Luke felt compelled to travel to Judea to get the story of Christ for himself and for Theophilus. He wouldn’t have done it had he not seen the truth in what he was hearing from Paul, who, himself, had spent time with the original disciples and heard the events of the life of Jesus during his times with them. Neither of these men found there to be conflicts in what the disciples were sharing and would write. Both men were sticklers for accuracy.
Let’s start in reverse order.
1. “Moral Failings” in Scripture
I’ll start off by saying that I’ve never seen Scripture, itself, as having any moral failings; only people. Let’s see if Scripture, by itself, can back that up.
You stated, “… you can look at the Bible's acceptance of owning human slaves or its acceptance of ethnic cleansing (the Canaanite slaughter).” (I can address the “Canaanite slaughter” in another post. I chose, first, to deal with the slave issue.)
To be direct, I contest the idea that the Bible promotes the “acceptance” of owning human slaves. Especially since we know that every human is an image-bearer of the Creator Himself. That said, there is a lot to be said about slavery, referencing both the Old Testament (eg. Exodus 12 & 21, Deuteronomy 15 & Leviticus 25—and I’m throwing in Job 31) and Paul’s conversation(s) through his letters (those he sent and those he received) about specific instances of slaves (eg. Ephesians 6, Colossians 3 & 1 Timothy 6).
So, to start, reading the Old Testament references about buying/gaining foreign slaves initially sounds draconian. They were permitted—by God—to be attained both through war and even purchased from foreigners (they may have even been sold by their own families or by people from their own nations) and owned as property. They could even be passed down through inheritance.
Would you agree that context is essential before making a judgment either on God’s character or when trying to determine whether the writer of this portion of the Bible was using deceit?
During my research on this subject (keeping context in mind), none of these people were to be treated like cattle. We cannot reference the evil of America’s slavery sin and try to overlay it on top of Old Testament slavery. Old Testament slaves that were bought were to be well-treated. You can imagine that in many instances, these people would be leaving a bad circumstance and entering into a better one, though their personal “rights to self-decision” were limited. They also had the right, if they chose, to become Hebrews themselves, and they would many times—if not most—be accepted into the community as equals. When it came to slaves acquired through war (and this is mostly a guess on my part, based on how the treatment of slaves was dictated by God), they were to become the “spoils of war” for the victors. It was better to be brought in as a slave than to be put to the sword. These people could also earn their way out of slavery.
​
Something to think about: If bringing a slave into the Hebrew community ultimately meant that said slave became a believer in the God of the Hebrews, it meant salvation (a death journey to “Abraham’s Bosom”) that would not have come from living in a society that worshiped false gods.
Do you see God’s view of slavery changing a bit if it meant someone’s redemption in the end? It’s not unlike being a slave to sin today, faced with a life that doesn’t produce joy or purpose. When we see God as Redeemer and Savior, in light of that slavery, salvation and purpose become the new normal.
As for Hebrews owning other Hebrews, though the word “own” is used, they were viewed as people owing and paying back a debt. And they could only be “owned” for so long. There was generosity and humane treatment. Oftentimes, they were “absorbed” into the family for which they were serving.
As for Paul’s writings, we can clearly see that Paul wasn’t advocating for any forms of slavery. In fact, he spoke to one slave holder and emphasized how his runaway slave was now his brother in Christ and to think on that when he returned to his hometown.
The last reference I’ll make for this subject is what Job says in his conversation with his friends. Remember that Job was another, like David, who was a man after God’s heart. And compared with David, we don’t see the same moral failings. In Job 31:13-15 (which likely predates every other written book in Scripture), Job speaks about his treatment of his servants and the reason he treats them so: ““If I have been unfair to my male or female servants when they brought their complaints to me, how could I face God? What could I say when he questioned me? For God created both me and my servants. He created us both in the womb."
If this is Job’s reasoning for treating his servants—as being God’s own creation—we know that irrespective of how a person became a slave to the Hebrews, God’s expectation for that person’s treatment would be the same as that of Job to his own servants.
2. Scientific Mistakes
You stated, “For scientific mistakes, the book of Genesis claims a cosmography that nobody accepts today, with a flat earth, a hard dome overhead (the firmament, which is "rakia" in Hebrew, and means a hard shell dome.) This is incorrect, and even young earth believers don't accept this cosmography.”
I’m unsure what you mean by, “the book of Genesis claims a cosmography that nobody accepts today, with a flat earth…” Are you asserting your belief in a flat earth or that Scripture asserts a flat earth to be a fact? Since I’m unsure, I’m just going to jump to the word “rakia” or “raqia”.
​
I agree with biblical researcher Gary Vaterlaus’ paper on the subject, called ‘Underneath a Solid Sky’. He points out that unlike the KJV/NKJV which has the word translated to “firmament” (giving the idea of solidness), the translators of the New American Standard offer a different (better) meaning: “expanse”: “Then God said, ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’”
He goes on to say that the Septuagint, which was translated by Jewish scholars for the Egyptian pharaoh, has the word “raqia” meaning “stereoma” which means a solid structure and was likely influenced by the Egyptian view of cosmology which “embraced the notion of the heavens being a stone vault.”
But … the Hebrew noun “raqia” is taken from the verb (important to know it’s an action word) “raqa”: “to spread abroad, stamp, or stretch”—expand—and that this word, being an action word, must be understood in its context (as it’s used in varied ways in Scripture). An example is Ezekiel 1:22 (ESV), “Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads.” Modern Hebrew doesn’t use the word “raqia” as a solid form; it simply means sky.
3. Historic Mistakes
You assert that “Mark and John can't both be right, because “the Gospel of Mark says that Jesus was executed on Friday, the day AFTER the Passover lamb was eaten” and “the Gospel of John says that Jesus was executed on Friday, the day OF the Passover lamb being eaten.”
It definitely sounds confusing in today’s context of days of the week and when they start and end. However, there is no disparity when you understand that the Passover meal occurred on what we would call Thursday evening. But that was the beginning of Friday for the Jews.
I wish I could give credit where it’s due for this response, but all I can give is a website: (https://www.gotquestions.org/Day-of-Preparation.html)
All four Gospels state that Jesus was crucified on the Day of Preparation (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42). Mark, Luke, and John all state that the following day was the Sabbath. John’s account uses this wording: “It was the day of Preparation of the Passover” (John 19:14). The question becomes, since Jesus was killed on the Day of Preparation, why had He already observed the Passover with His disciples (Matthew 26:17–29; Mark 14:12–25; Luke 22:7–22; John 13:1–30)?
First, we should discard the theory that the writers of the New Testament made a mistake. Theorizing that all four of the Gospel writers got the chronology wrong stretches credulity to the breaking point. Are we really to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all forgot what they had written from one chapter to the next? No, there must be a better explanation for why Jesus ate the Passover before the Day of Preparation.
Next, we need to identify what the Day of Preparation was preparing for. Every week, preparations had to be made for the Sabbath—food had to be prepared ahead of time. This led to the “Day of Preparation” becoming the common term for “Friday.” Although many preparations also had to be made for the Passover, there is no record of “Passover Eve” being called the Day of Preparation. The Day of Preparation was always Friday, the day before the Sabbath. Mark 15:42 makes this clear.
How then do we explain John’s statement that Jesus died on “the day of Preparation of the Passover” (John 19:14)? It’s quite possible that John simply meant that this particular Friday fell during Passover week; we could understand his words this way: “It was the day of Preparation, the one that happened to come during the season of Passover.” So, the Day of Preparation was to prepare for the Sabbath, not the Passover.
The Mosaic Law stipulated what day the Passover lamb was to be eaten: Nissan 14 (Numbers 9:2–3). We must assume that Jesus kept the Law and observed Passover at the appointed time (see Galatians 4:4). After the Passover (Thursday) came the Day of Preparation (Friday) on which Jesus was killed. The Sabbath (Saturday) followed, of course, and then the first day of the week (Sunday)—the third day after the crucifixion and the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.
I’m also adding a photo of a graph from Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM). It shows the layout of the three days and nights of Christ’s death and resurrection. Night in this case is Thursday night (night one, which was the beginning of their Friday), our Friday night (night two, which was the beginning of their Saturday), and our Saturday night (night three, which was the beginning of their Sunday). The Jews did not subtract the previous night from their days, hence three days and three nights in the grave, so “in the minds of the people in Bible times, “the third day” is equivalent to “after three days.”
