Skepticism and Christianity: Part Five
Biblical errancy versus inerrancy:
As mentioned earlier in this series, many Christians believe the Biblical Scriptures are the inerrant word of God. Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham) says the Bible is God's inerrant word from cover to cover. As covered earlier in this series, skeptics see this as pure nonsense as they believe they have discovered multiple errancies in Scripture. Skeptics ask how anyone can intelligently conclude that the Biblical Scriptures are inerrant documents from cover to cover when the evidence shows this to be totally false.
Most Christians believe the Biblical Scriptures are inspired by an infallible God and are therefore inerrant in their original autographs. To be infallible means to be incapable of error and to be inerrant means to be without error. Skeptics believe they have identified numerous contradictions, inconsistencies, incongruities and fraudulent applications of Biblical Scripture. They believe there is considerable evidence that shows belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures is delusionary. Skeptics believe that the contradictions, inconsistencies, incongruities and fraudulent applications of Scriptures found in the Bible show the Bible to be highly errant and therefore unreliable as a document upon which to build a religious system.
In this fifth essay of this series, I will identify many of the Scriptures and Scriptural passages that skeptics believe clearly show the Bible to be an unreliable document. I will also provide Christian apologist responses to the skeptic’s view where available. I will begin with a discussion of Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus which skeptics believe is a fraudulent application of an Old Testament prophecy.
The virgin birth:
In Matthew 1:18-23, Matthew explains that Jesus was born of a virgin (Mary) and this was in fulfillment of a prophecy found in Isaiah 7.
Matthew 1:22-23: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" -which means, “God with us.
Isaiah 7:14-16: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Skeptics point out that there is nothing in the Isaiah passage that points to the birth of Jesus. Isaiah 7 is all about an impending war between Ahaz, king of Judah, and Pekah king of Israel and his ally Rezin, king of Aram. The narrative explains that God, through the prophet Isaiah, told Ahaz that a sign would be given to Ahaz to show him the alliance between Pekah and Rezin would not succeed against Ahaz. The sign would be that a virgin would give birth to a son who would be called Immanuel. The narrative goes on to show how this all came about. (For a much more detailed discussion of this issue, go to http://theologicalperspectives.com/scriptural-reliability-part-eight)
The entire context of Isaiah 7 and 8 is about God being with Ahaz and the nation of Judah in preventing the alliance from being successful against Ahaz. The virgin birth was to be a sign to Ahaz that this would indeed be the case. There isn’t a hint in any of this as to the birth of Jesus. Skeptics accuse Matthew of fraudulently applying the Isaiah passage to the birth of Christ to push a virgin birth agenda.
Christian apologists don’t dispute that the virgin birth recorded in Isaiah 7 is connected to a situation extant in Isaiah’s time. However, because Jesus apparently believed the Old Testament had many references to Him and since Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God, these references must be about Jesus as Jesus understood them to be. During His ministry Jesus is reported to have said the following:
Luke 24:25-27: He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Luke 24:44: He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
John 5:39: You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me.
John 5:46: If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
In addition to the above statements from Jesus, Peter and Paul made the following statements.
Acts 2:18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer.
Acts 2:24:"Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days.
Acts 18:28: For he (Paul) vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the (Old Testament) Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.
Most Christian apologists would argue that if Jesus saw Old Testament Scriptures referencing Him, it must be so and to argue otherwise is to disagree with Jesus. Some Christian apologists believe Matthew was not saying Isaiah was prophesying the birth of Christ. They believe Matthew is saying that the virgin birth of Jesus is a greater fulfillment of the prophesied virgin birth that occurred under the circumstances extant during Isaiah’s time as is seen in Isaiah 7.
It is pointed out that the Greek word rendered fulfill in Matthew 2:17 is plēroō. This word, in various tenses, appears 88 times in the NT. Greek Lexicons show this word to mean “to make full, to fill, to fill up, to complete and to fill to the full.” It is believed that Matthew may simply be saying that the birth of Christ reflects a greater and more complete fulfillment of something that occurred during Isaiah’s time. Under this perspective, the virgin birth of Jesus is a filling up or making full of a prophecy that pertains to events that occurred hundreds of years earlier.
Skeptics see this explanation as nonsense because of what Jesus and others are recorded as having said regarding Old Testament sayings and events pertaining to Jesus. Jesus apparently saw a number of Old Testament Scriptures as being about Him irrespective of their obvious fulfillment in Old Testament times. It is evident from Luke 24:44 that Jesus had shared with His disciples His belief about Old Testament Scripture being about Him. Therefore, it is very likely Matthew and others simply embraced Jesus’ belief and reflected His belief in their Gospel narratives.
Therefore, skeptics believe Matthew is seeing the virgin birth of Jesus not as a greater fulfillment of an event fulfilled in Isaiah’s time but as a prophesied event involving the future to Isaiah birth of Christ. Matthew is seen as doing this despite the fact that Isaiah is clearly talking about an event that was to occur in his time and not hundreds of years future to his time. Since Skeptics generally don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, they believe both Jesus and His followers were misguided in using a number of Old Testament events and sayings as prophesies about the Christ event.
Skeptics believe that if indeed Jesus sees these Old Testament events as pointing to Him, He is doing so outside of any Old Testament evidence that this is the case. Because of this, skeptics see Jesus’ use of Old Testament events pointing to Him as delusionary on His part. Skeptics see Jesus’ use of Old Testament events as pointing to Him as He portraying Himself as something He wasn’t. The Gospel writers and Peter and Paul are seen as believing what Jesus said about the Old Testament Scriptures pointing to Jesus and simply parroting this belief in their writings. (For a comprehensive discussion of Old Testament prophecy and Jesus, go to ("Old Testament Prophecy and Jesus")
Christian apologists respond by pointing out that Jesus saying that "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44), doesn’t mean that every OT event seen by NT writers as being fulfilled in Jesus were seen by Jesus as written with Him in mind. It appears Jesus was primarily referring to events associated with His death (Luke 24:25-27, Acts 2:18,24). Christian apologists say the task before us is to determine what exactly it is that Jesus saw as being written about Him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.
Christian apologists contend that when we see OT events and sayings said by NT authors to be fulfilled in Christ, we shouldn’t assume these authors are always saying such sayings and events occurred with Christ in mind? It could very well be that NT writers are saying that OT sayings and events they see as being fulfilled in the life of Christ are parallel to an OT saying or event or a greater or more complete fulfillment of such OT saying or event. It is believed that we should not assume references to OT events being fulfilled in Christ were all events that occurred with Christ in mind.
As already covered, the Greek word translated “fulfilled” in the NT is pleeroo. This word appears 90 times in the NT and has the basic meaning of “to make full, to fill, to fill up and to fill to the full.” When Matthew writes that the virgin pregnancy of Mary was to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet, is he saying Isaiah was prophesying Mary’s virgin pregnancy or was he only saying that the event in Isaiah’s time was being made full in Mary and not that this event in Isaiah’s time occurred with Christ in mind.
Skeptics also see problems with the virgin birth being a sign to Ahaz that the alliance would be unsuccessful. It is said that before the son born of the virgin knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings (Pekah and Rezin) would be laid waste (Isaiah 7:16). Skeptics point to a passage in 2nd Chronicles 28 that appears to contradict what is said in Isaiah 7.
In 2nd Chronicles 28:1-8, it is recorded that because Ahaz was not obedient to God, God delivered him into the hands of the king of Aram (Rezin). The Arameans defeated Ahaz and took many of his people as prisoners. Ahaz was also given into the hands of the king of Israel (Pekah), who inflicted heavy casualties on him and Judah.
2nd Chronicles 28:5-6: Therefore, the LORD his God delivered him (Ahaz) into the hands of the king of Aram (Rezin). The Arameans defeated him and took many of his people as prisoners and brought them to Damascus. He was also given into the hands of the king of Israel (Pekah) who inflicted heavy casualties on him. In one day Pekah son of Remaliah killed a hundred and twenty thousand soldiers in Judah—because Judah had forsaken the LORD, the God of their ancestors.
Skeptics see the account in 2nd Chronicles as contradictory to what is said in Isaiah 7 about Pekah and Rezin being unsuccessful in war against Ahaz and Judah. It is argued that you can’t say the alliance will be unsuccessful against Ahaz and then show it to be successful. This is seen as evidence of the Scriptures being errant in their presentation of this event.
Christian apologists respond by turning to 2nd Kings 16 for what they feel is a reasonable explanation of this perceived contradiction. It is recorded in 2nd Kings 16 that because Ahaz failed to do what was right in the sight of God, Rezin and Pekah marched up to fight against Jerusalem and besieged Ahaz, “but they could not overpower him” (6:5). It is recorded in 16:7 that Ahaz asked for help from the king of Assyria to “Come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram and of the king of Israel, who are attacking me.”
It is recorded in 16:9 that the king of Assyria responded by attacking Damascus, capturing it and putting Rezin to death. History shows this happened in 732 BC. History also shows that the Assyrians captured the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC which brought the reign of Pekah to an end. So, while 2nd Chronicles 28 shows Rezin and Pekah having a measure of success against Ahaz and Judah, their success was short lived as the Assyrians brought an end to the reign of both Rezin and Pekah. This is seen as a fulfillment of the following passages from Isaiah 7
Isaiah 7:4: ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood (Pekah and Rezin).
Isaiah 7:16 for before the boy (the one born of a virgin) knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
Christian apologists point out that all Scriptural narrative on a particular issue must be considered before coming to a conclusion about the issue.
Women weeping for their children:
In Matthew the second chapter, we are told that Herod’s decree to kill all male children less than two years old fulfilled something Jeremiah wrote hundreds of years earlier.
Matthew 2:17-18: Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.
Jeremiah 31:15: This is what the LORD says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."
As can be seen, this prophecy is quoted from Jeremiah 31:15. A careful reading of Jeremiah chapters 29 through 31 will reveal that Jeremiah is dealing with the issue of Judah’s dispersion created by the Babylonian captivity and their returning from that captivity. That is the context of Jeremiah’s statement in 31:15. Jeremiah’s message is actually a message of hope and not one of mourning. In Jeremiah 31:16-17, the prophet answers his observation about a voice of weeping and mourning heard in Ramah.
Jeremiah 31:16-17: This is what the LORD says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the LORD. "They will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your future," declares the LORD. "Your children will return to their own land.
Jeremiah appears to be reflecting on the sorry state of the Babylonian captivity while offering hope of a return from that captivity which indeed did take place under Ezra and Nehemiah.
Skeptics point out that there is nothing in the context of Jeremiah 31 that associates what the prophet wrote with the killing of the children in Bethlehem as Matthew indicates. The captives of Judah, hearing what Jeremiah had to say would not have understood it to refer to an event many hundreds of years into the future from their time. Neither is there any indication that Jeremiah had in mind a fulfillment of what he said taking place hundreds of years future to his time. The context of his prophecy shows he was dealing with soon-to-occur events of his own time and not events far removed from his time.
Furthermore, there is no record of the killing of the children in Bethlehem in the secular history of the first century. First century historian Josephus, who wrote extensively about the life of Herod in his history of the Jews, makes no mention of Herod killing the children of Bethlehem. In reading Josephus, it becomes apparent that he had little use for Herod and went out of his way to write about all the evil things Herod did. Yet there is no mention by Josephus of Herod having the male children of Bethlehem killed as recorded by Matthew. Luke, the other New Testament reporter of the birth of Christ, makes no mention of this event.
Because of the absence of verification from Josephus, some scholars believe this event never took place. However, Christian apologists point out that the population of Bethlehem may have been very small and therefore only a small number of children were killed. Since Herod had a record of killing his enemies, the killing of some children in a small town would not have produced much of a stir and consequently historians of the time would not have paid any attention to this event. Therefore, it is believed that the lack of second source verification of this event should not lead one to conclude this event didn’t happen.
The bigger question is how could Matthew see the killing of the children in Bethlehem as a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy? The events Jeremiah spoke of appear all to be related to the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity. It appears Matthew is putting quite a different spin on what Jeremiah wrote. Christian apologists apply to this the same explanation as seen above relative to the virgin birth. It said that Matthew is not saying Jeremiah was prophesying this event to occur in the life of Christ but that he was showing this event to be a greater fulfillment of an event that had previously occurred during the time of Jeremiah.
To the skeptic, it is obvious that Matthew is seeing Jeremiah prophesying this as an event to take place in the life of Christ. Therefore, this is seen as another example of Matthew arbitrarily taking something out of its original context and fraudulently applying it to the Christ event. Furthermore, skeptics point out that Jeremiah says there were women weeping in a place called Ramah. Ramah was a town of the tribe of Benjamin situated around six miles north of Jerusalem on the road leading to Bethel. Bethlehem is around six miles south of Jerusalem. Therefore, Ramah is around twelve miles north of Bethlehem. It is asked why woman would be weeping for their children in Ramah if the decree from Herod was to kill the children in Bethlehem?
Christian apologists respond by showing that Herod gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity (Matthew 2:16). Therefore, it is believed the killing could have gone as far as Ramah. Skeptics believe it to be a stretch to see a town twelve miles away as being in the vicinity of Bethlehem.
Fleeing to Egypt:
In Matthew, the second chapter, it’s recorded that Joseph and Mary and the Christ child fled to Egypt and “so was fulfilled what the Lord had said to the prophet: "Out of Egypt I have called my son.” (Matthew 2:15). While Matthew doesn’t name the prophet referred too, it’s generally recognized that this quote is from Hosea 11:1 where the prophet quotes God as saying, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Skeptics point out that when you read the context of Hosea 11, it becomes obvious it is Israel who is the son being referred to who was called out of Egypt at the time of the exodus. This statement by God as recorded by Hosea says nothing about Christ being called out of Egypt and is not even prophetic but historical in so much as it reflects on a past event in Israel’s history.
Matthew takes the statement in Hosea and applies it to the Christ event as fulfilling what the Lord said through the prophet. There is nothing in the context of Hosea suggesting this. As in other events already discussed, skeptics see this as another example of Matthew arbitrarily taking something out of its original context and fraudulently applying it to the Christ event. Christian apologists see Matthew as simply using events from OT history as examples of a greater or parallel fulfillment in the life of Christ.
The return to Nazareth:
Only Matthew and Luke record events associated with the birth of Jesus. Matthew records the visitation of the Magi, the killing of the children in Bethlehem, the family escaping to Egypt and a return to Nazareth. The visitation of the Magi appears to have occurred many months after the birth of Jesus. It is only after the visitation of the Magi, the killing of the Children and the escape to Egypt that the family is seen as returning to Nazarath (Matthew chapter two). Matthew sees the return to Nazarath as a fulfillment of what was said through the prophets.
Matthew 2:23: and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
There is no record in the OT of any prophet ever having made a statement about Christ or anyone else living in Nazareth. In fact, the word Nazareth or Nazarene does not appear in the Old Testament. What “prophets” is Matthew quoting?
Luke’s account of the events surrounding the birth of Christ is quite different from Matthew’s and appears to be inconsistent and even contradictory to the account given by Matthew. Luke writes the following:
Luke 2:22: When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.
The purification period would have been thirty-three days after circumcision took place on the eighth day (See Leviticus 12:1-5). In Luke 2:39, Luke writes, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own home town of Nazareth.” Matthew, on the other hand, has the family leaving Bethlehem, escaping to Egypt, and living there for an undisclosed period of time and only then returning to Nazareth. This could have involved many months if not years subsequent to the birth of Jesus.
Luke says nothing about the visitation of Magi, killing of children or an escape to Egypt. Luke has the family returning to Nazareth after fulfilling the requirements of the Law which would make perfect sense seeing this is where they were from and they had only visited Bethlehem because of the census requirement.
Skeptics see the conflicting narrative about the birth event as another proof of the unreliability and errancy of Biblical Scripture. Some scholars feel Matthew made up the escape to Egypt story to tie yet another OT saying to the birth of Christ.
The potter’s field:
In Matthew 27:3-10 is the account of Judas being paid 30 pieces of sliver in his betrayal of Jesus and he giving the silver back to the Jewish leadership who use it to buy the potter’s field, a burial ground. Matthew sees this as a fulfillment of something Jeremiah wrote about.
Matthew 27:9-10: “Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.” The Greek word rendered “potter” in this passage refers to someone who molds something out of clay (See Romans 9).
There is a problem with Matthew’s account. There is no passage in Jeremiah that says what Matthew says it does. Either Matthew was quoting from a writing of Jeremiah that is not included in the OT book of Jeremiah or he simply made a mistake as to the source for his quote. A reference to silver thrown to the potter is only found in Zechariah 11.
Zechariah 11:12-13: I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the LORD.
Zechariah 11:12-13 speaks of someone who is paid 30 pieces of silver which is then thrown to the potter at God’s command. The word “potter” is a transliteration of the Hebrew word yatsar which means to press or be narrow, to mold into a form. The word appears 63 times in the OT and is often used in reference to making something out of clay. There is nothing in the context of Zechariah 11 that in any way suggests this is a prophecy of events associated with the betrayal of Jesus as described in Matthew 27. There is no buying of a potter’s field commanded by the Lord in Zechariah as Matthew cites in his supposed quote from Jeremiah.
In reading Matthew’s account, it almost seems as though he took bits and pieces of narrative from Zechariah and made up a story which he then applies to the betrayal of Jesus. There is nothing in the Zechariah passage that speaks of a potter’s field. Matthew’s use of this passage as a fulfillment of what is written in Zechariah appears to be without merit and is totality incongruous with the betrayal of Jesus event.
Skeptics see this as yet another example of Matthew plunking an OT event out of its OT context and arbitrarily and fraudulently applying it to an event in the life of Christ. Skeptics point out that Matthew is not the only Gospel writer that does this.
Gall and vinegar:
In John 19:28, John writes that “knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” It is then recorded that a jar of wine vinegar was there and they soaked a sponge in it and put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. While the Scripture being fulfilled is not identified, it is generally believed that the Scripture referred to is Psalm 69:21
Psalm 69:21: They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.
This entire Psalm is about David describing, with much figurative and hyperbolic language, the persecution and suffering he was experiencing and his plea to God to deliver him and punish his enemies. John makes it sound as though the language about gall and vinegar is not about David but about Christ and that Christ sees this as needing to be fulfilled by saying “I am thirsty.” Apparently, both John and Jesus assumed that the passage in Psalm 69:21 is prophecy about Jesus. Some exegete’s see the entire Psalm as being about Jesus even though verse 5 speaks of David’s folly and guilt, something that would not apply to Jesus.
Passages in the Psalms are routinely seen as applying to Jesus. In John 2:13-17 is the account of Jesus driving merchants out of the temple courts. It is recorded in verse 17 that “His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” This is taken from Psalm 69:9.
In Romans 15:3, Paul wrote, “For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” This also appears to be taken from Psalm 69:9, “for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.”
In Acts 1:18-20 is the account of Judas dying in the field he had purchased. In verse 20 it is recorded that “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: “‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it, ‘and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’ The Psalms Peter is apparently alluding to appear to be Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 where it is written that “May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents” (69:25) and “May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership" (109:8).
New Testament writers routinely see New Testament events as being prophesied or alluded to in the Old Testament writings. There are hundreds of supposed prophecies and sayings in the Old Testament that New Testament writers see as being fulfilled in Christ. Here is another one:
Matthew 13:34-35: Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”
This saying is supposedly taken from Psalm 78:1-4 which reads: “My people, hear my teaching; listen to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter hidden things, things from of old—things we have heard and known, things our ancestors have told us. We will not hide them from their descendants; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD, his power, and the wonders he has done.”
Psalm 78 is a teaching from a man named Asaph. It is a 70-verse account of the history Israel. There is nothing prophetic here. There is nothing here to make one believe that when the writer says “I will open my mouth with a parable” he is prophesying this being fulfilled in Christ.
One website lists 351 of Old Testament passages that were supposedly fulfilled in Christ. https://www.newtestamentchristians.com/bible-study-resources/351-old-testament-prophecies-fulfilled-in-jesus-christ/
Skeptics see all this as assumptions gone wild. Skeptics see New Testament writers routinely taking Old Testament Scripture out of context and arbitrarily applying such Scripture to Christ without sufficient evidence that such application is valid. Skeptics see the same being done by Christian theologians and apologists. Skeptics point out that those of the Jewish faith look at these same Scriptures and see no connection to Jesus or other events described in the New Testament.
Skeptics conclude that Christians, including writers of New Testament documents, have manufactured a religious system based on their interpretation of Old Testament events and sayings as being prophetic of events in the life of Christ. This is seen as tantamount to assuming the thing to be proved, which is considered a basic error in thinking. What needs to be proved is the validity of the interpretations. A good example of an interpretation by a New Testament writer assuming the thing to be proved is seen in Hebrews 10:3-5.
In Hebrews 10:3-5 we read “But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body (Greek: σῶμά (sōma) you prepared for me” (NIV). This appears to be a quote from Psalm 40:6 which reads: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire— but my ears (Hebrew: אֹ֫זֶן (ozen) you have opened — burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require” (NIV).
The Hebrew אֹ֫זֶן (ozen) means ears/organ of hearing. This word occurs 241 times in the OT and always refers to something associated with hearing. The Greek σῶμά (sōma) means body and is so used to describe a physical body some 141 times in the NT.
The author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 40:6 from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures known as the Septuagint (LXX). In the Septuagint this verse appears as Psalm 39:7 and is rendered in English as “Sacrifice and offering you did not will; but a body (σῶμά (sōma) You prepared for me; a whole burnt offering and a sin offering You did not require” (The Orthodox Study Bible, A translation of the Septuagint into English). The Septuagint translators apparently interpreted “opened ears” to mean “a body prepared.” However, this is not what the Hebrew rendering of this passage says.
Research has shown that out of 340 NT quotations from the OT, 307 of them are from the Septuagint. There are only 33 quotations that are clearly taken from OT Hebrew Texts. Therefore, it is evident that Jesus, Paul, Peter and other NT luminaries extensively used the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures when quoting the Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore, they were not quoting the Hebrew Scriptures directly but a Greek rendering/interpretation of those Scriptures.
The writer to the Hebrews appears to apply Psalm 40 to Christ. However, Psalm 40 appears to be David writing about himself as he says in verse 12, “For troubles without number surround me; my sins have overtaken me, and I cannot see. They are more than the hairs of my head, and my heart fails within me.” Jesus is seen in Scripture as never sinning. The Hebrew word rendered “sins” is ‘ă·wō·nō·ṯay and means iniquity or guilt. This word, in its various tenses, appears 231 time in the Hebrew Scriptures and by context can always be seen to mean iniquity and is so rendered in many English translations.
The skeptic asks how can the writer to the Hebrews apply Psalm 40:6/39:7 to Christ if indeed it is David writing about himself and not about Christ as witnessed by David's reference to his sin in Psalm 40:12. Furthermore, the writer is using a Greek interpretation of the Hebrew language in the rendering of Psalm 40:6 which changes the meaning of what was intended by the writer of Psalm 40:6 who presumedly wrote Psalm 40:6 in Hebrew.
Since New Testament writers are largely quoting Old Testament passages from the Septuagint which is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, it is the translators’ interpretations of the Hebrew text that comes into play. This is true of all translation of a document of one language into another language. This being the case, the skeptic asks how it can ever be said the Biblical Scriptures are the inspired/inerrant word of God?
Christian apologists respond by saying the Biblical Scriptures are the inspired/inerrant word of God in their original autographs. Since we have no original autographs, skeptics see this as a moot point. What we have are copies of copies of copies. Research has shown there to be many variants between the copies. For greater discussion of this issue, go to "Are the Biblical Scriptures reliable"
The Centurion's servant:
Matthew 8:5-10 &13: is the account of a centurion coming to Jesus and asking for him to heal his paralyzed servant. Jesus said he would go to his house and heal the servant. The centurion replied that he did not deserve to have Jesus come under his roof but that if Jesus would just say the word, his servant would be healed. It is recorded that Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done as you believed it would. And his servant was healed at that very hour.”
A review of the parallel account of this event in the gospel of Luke reveals a perspective quite different from what Matthew had regarding the manner in which this event unfolded.
Luke 7:1-10 records that the centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to Him to ask Him to come and heal his servant. It is said that “When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with Him, so Jesus went with them.” It’s then recorded that when Jesus was not far from the house, the Centurion sent friends to tell Jesus he did not deserve to have Jesus come under his roof and that is why he did not consider himself worthy to come to Jesus but if Jesus will say the word, his servant will be healed. It is then recorded that the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.
Matthew has the centurion coming directly to Jesus, speaking to Him, and Jesus responding directly back to the centurion. Luke has the centurion first sending elders of the Jews to Jesus and then sending friends. Luke also shows, by the centurion’s dialog, that he did not personally appear before Christ. Thus, we have Matthew and Luke giving very different accounts of just who it was that came and spoke to Christ about the centurion’s servant.
Some commentators, realizing the discrepancy here, offer the solution that Matthew and Luke are describing two separate events. However, this appears very unlikely. The recorded activities of Jesus just prior to the episode with the centurion, are largely the same in both Matthew and Luke. Some apologetic response to the apparent inconsistency between these two accounts is that Luke is reporting the way this event actually played out while Matthew is doing the same but is doing so as though the centurion is speaking to Christ through his representatives. It is believed Matthew is saying the same thing Luke is saying but from a different perspective.
While this explanation is plausible, the grammatical structure of the narrative makes this argument problematical. The Greek grammar of Matthew's account shows Jesus to be directly addressing the centurion and the centurion directly addressing Jesus. If we take what is recorded in Matthew's and Luke's account of this event at face value, these accounts are not internally consistent. While concluding that the centurion is speaking through his representatives is a way of harmonizing these two accounts, the fact remains that the two accounts are quite different in how they report who was speaking to whom.
This being said, Christian apologists point out that differing details of an event does not mean the event didn’t happen. It is believed differing details between reports of the same event gives greater attestation to the event having happened. By authors providing independent accounts of an event, we get greater confirmation as to the event having occurred. In the case of the centurion's servant, both authors report that Christ healed the centurion’s servant. There should be no doubt this event occurred. Reliability does not demand complete consistency in reporting. An account of an event does not have to be accurate in every detail to be a reliable account of such event.
We have all heard of the situation where two people witness an accident and differ in reporting what they saw. If we look at what Matthew and Luke reported from this perspective, it could simply be a matter of each of them interpreting this event from different sets of information as to what happened. Matthew, being one of the twelve, may have been present when this event took place and is writing from an eyewitness perspective. We know from Luke 1:1-4 that Luke wrote from gathered information which may have placed a different spin on the details of events he wrote about
Skeptics will agree with this assessment but maintain that inconsistent descriptions of events recorded in Scripture clearly show the Scriptures are not inerrant and because they are not inerrant, skeptics believe they are not the result of an infallible divine source as is commonly believed by Christians.
How many animals did Christ ride?
Let us consider the accounts of Christ riding into Jerusalem. Four different authors report on this event.
In Mark 11:1-7, Luke 19:29-35 and John 12:12-15, we have the account of Jesus riding into Jerusalem. All three of these authors show Jesus asking for and being provided a single colt to ride on. “When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it” (Mark 11:7). “They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it” (Luke 19:35). “O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt" (John 12:15).
Matthew has a different spin on this event. In Matthew 21:1-7, it is written that Jesus sent two disciples to a village where they would find a donkey tied there with her colt by her. He instructs the two disciples to bring both the donkey and the colt to Him. It is then written that, “They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them” (Matthew 21:7).
In recording this event, both Matthew and John refer to a statement made by the prophet Zechariah as being predictive or providing a parallel to the event of Christ riding into Jerusalem. This quote is taken from Zechariah 9:9.
Matthew 21:4-5: This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”
John 12:15: “Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.”
Zechariah 9:9: Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, shout, daughter of Jerusalem, Behold, your king is coming to you; he is just and triumphant, humble and riding on an ass, upon the foal of an ass.
The KJV of 1611 and a number of older translations such as Wycliffe (1395), Coverdale (1535), Geneva (1887), and Luther's German Bible (1545), all translate Zechariah 9:9 as Zechariah saying the King is riding an ass and the colt of an ass. The KJV is typical of how these older translations render this passage.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
A Hebrew Interlinear Bible I checked shows the Hebrew word for "and" is in the Hebrew text of this passage. The translators of the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) use the Greek word kai in translating this passage and reads as follows: "humble and riding on an ass, and (kai) upon the foal of an ass." Kai is commonly translated as "and" in the English NT.
Understanding Zechariah to have referred to two separate animals even carried over into early Christian art where some scenes of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem show Him straddling two animals.
Scholars who have studied this text, and others like it, have identified a Hebrew poetic technique were each key word is reinforced by a synonym or parallel word or phrase. It is sometimes referred to as a "doublet." In this passage we see this technique exemplified. We see parallel words being used such as rejoice/shout, Zion/Jerusalem, riding on an ass/riding on the foal of an ass.
Even though the word "and" is found in ancient Hebrew texts and in the Septuagint rendering of Zechariah 9:9, some modern translators, having recognized this Hebrew poetic technique, have deleted the word "and" in both Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew's quote of Zechariah 9:9. This is true of the NIV, NKJV and the RSV. Oddly, however, the NET translation, which is considered the most up to date translation of the Scriptures, includes the word "and" in its rendering of both Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 24:4-5.
Regardless of how some modern-day translations render Zechariah 9:9, it is apparent Matthew was quoting from either the Hebrew or the Septuagint (Greek OT) when quoting this passage as the extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew's gospel include "and" in the passage under consideration. What is of greater pertinence to this discussion is to ask the question of where did Matthew obtain his information about this event?
If he was an eyewitness, did he actually see Christ riding on two animals or two animals present at this event? If he is relying on the observation of others, did others see Christ riding on two animals or did others see two animals present at this event? Was there only one animal involved, which appears to be what Mark, Luke and John are saying? Did Matthew base his reporting of Christ's ride into Jerusalem on what actually took place or did he base it on his perception of this event fulfilling an OT prophecy and wrote from the perspective of his understanding of this prophecy?
If the scholars are right as to the parallelism present in this passage, and it appears they are, the text speaking of an ass and a foal of an ass would not mean two animals are being spoken of. Therefore, it would appear Matthew is not applying this passage from Zechariah correctly.
Christian apologists have tried to reconcile Matthew's account with the other three reports of this event in a number of ways. It's been suggested the three other writers either weren't aware of there being two animals or simply chose not to include the second animal in their account of this event. It is believed that the mere fact that the other writers don't mention a second animal doesn't mean it wasn't there. Some have proposed that when Matthew says "He sat on them," it is a reference to sitting on the cloaks placed on the donkeys and not on the donkeys themselves. It is believed Matthew isn't saying Jesus was riding both donkeys at the same time but first rode one and when it tired, He switched to the other.
These apologetic responses don't appear very plausible. It is clear Matthew records that Jesus asked for two donkeys, was brought two donkeys and that two donkeys were somehow involved with His ride into Jerusalem. It is also clear that Mark, Luke and John report one donkey involved with this event. When consideration is given to the apparent parallelism in Zechariah's prophecy, it would appear the prophet was not talking about two animals and therefore two animals would not be required to fulfill this prophecy.
In view of Mark, Luke and John clearly writing of Jesus asking for one animal and riding one animal, it appears possible that Matthew didn't recognize the parallelism in Zechariah's prophecy and when he wrote his Gospel, he focused on associating Zechariah's prophecy with Christ's ride into Jerusalem regardless of what actually may have occurred when that event took place. Matthew may not have been present when Jesus asked his disciples to provide a donkey. Matthew may not have been present when Jesus rode into Jerusalem.
In reading Matthew's Gospel, it becomes apparent he was very focused on seeing OT sayings fulfilled in Christ. It is possible Matthew simply understood the passage in Zechariah to be referring to two separate animals and thus wrote of this passage being fulfilled in Christ from that viewpoint. If Matthew wasn't present at this event and only heard about it later in general terms, he may simply have assumed Jesus asked for and rode two animals based on his belief that Zechariah was speaking of two animals. This, of course, doesn't justify or subtract from his mistaken reporting of this event. It only provides a plausible explanation for him reporting this event in the manner he did.
If indeed the Zechariah passage is showing a poetic parallelism, then for Christ to fulfill this prophecy would not require two animals to be involved. Yet Matthew writes from the perspective that two animals were involved while Mark, Luke and John refer to only one animal.
Skeptics see the above as a blatant example of Scriptural errancy. It is believed that if God inspired the accounts of this event, all four accounts should report this event in a very similar manner. Yet we have a significant difference in how Mark, Luke and John report this event from that of Matthew.
Furthermore, both Matthew and John use the Zechariah 9 passage as somehow foreshadowing Jesus’ ride into Jerusalem. Skeptics look at the context of Zechariah 9 and see no reason to believe that what is written there is about Jesus. The context is all about ancient Israel and its interaction with the nations around them. Skeptics accuse NT writers of arbitrarily taking OT passages out of their original context and applying them to Jesus.
Christian apologists admit there is an apparent irreconcilable difference between Matthew’s reporting of the event of Jesus coming into Jerusalem versus the reporting of Mark, Luke and John. However, they point out that four separate writers confirm this event happened in the life of Christ. All four writers describe the people welcoming Jesus with shouts of joy. Therefore, it is apparent Jesus did indeed ride on a donkey into Jerusalem and made quite an impact on those who were there to witness this event. That there is questionable consistency between Matthew and the other writers as to the number of animals involved is seen as a minor point when compared to the major confirmation of the general dynamics of this event by four independent authors.
However, skeptics see this as a major inconsistency between writers which demonstrates the lack of inerrancy in Scriptural writing. It should be obvious that both Matthew's and the other three accounts of this event can't both be right as to the number of animals Jesus asked for and rode into Jerusalem.
Side note: Some Biblical scholars believe Jesus riding into Jerusalem and being hailed as a king never happened because if it did, it is believed the Romans would have immediately arrested Jesus and put Him to death since they had no tolerance for anyone claiming to be or being claimed to be a king. However, this event took place during the Passover season when Jerusalem was extremely crowded and the Romans did everything possible to keep the peace. Arresting Jesus in broad daylight and executing Him would have created quite a backlash.
Following are some additional events where discrepancies appear in the reporting of such events.
Skeptics point to a discrepancy that exists in regard to the various accounts of the transfiguration. Matthew and Mark record that after six days the transfiguration took place. Luke records it was after eight days (Matthew 17:1-2, Mark 9:2, Luke 9:28). While it may be argued that Matthew and Mark's six days are included in Luke's eight days, the fact remains that Luke sees two more days passing by before the transfiguration occurs than do Matthew and Mark. Either six days passed and then the transfiguration took place or eight days passed and then this event occurred. It can't be both in a strict sense. While a minor difference, this is still seen by skeptics as showing the errancy in Scripture. Here is another such discrepancy.
Ahimelech or Abiathar?
In Mark 2:25-26, the writer quotes Jesus as saying: "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Jesus is apparently referencing 1 Samuel 21:1-6 where the priest Ahimelech is mentioned and not Abiathar. Ahimelech is clearly shown to be the high priest at the time of the eating of the consecrated bread incident. Shortly after this incident, King Saul had Ahimelech killed and Ahimlech’s son Abiathar escaped to join David and his men who were hiding from Saul. It is recorded that Abiathar served as priest to David and his men. After Saul was killed and David became King of Israel it is apparent that Abiathar became the high priest although there isn’t explicit Scriptural evidence for this.
Did Jesus reference the wrong priest in referring to the eating of the consecrated bread incident? Did Mark misquote Jesus? Does it matter? It only matters if you insist on believing that every word of every statement in Biblical Scripture is inerrant. Since Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech and apparently succeeded his father as high priest, it is not hard to see that Abiathar could have been mistaken for Ahimelech in referencing the consecrated bread incident.
It is instructive that Matthew’s and Luke’s account of the consecrated bread incident does not mention Abiathar or anyone else as being the high priest. Since many scholars believe Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, it is surmised that these two writers edited out the reference to Abiathar because they realized it was erroneous. It is also instructive that some early fifth century Greek manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel omit the reference to Abiathar.
Skeptics see all this as indicative of the Scriptures being inconsistent in reporting what they do and therefore the Scriptures are unreliable as to providing a proper foundation upon which to build a valid religious system.
The numbers game:
Skeptics point to many discrepancies relative to numbers in the Scriptures. A classic example is the following: In Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5 and Deuteronomy 10:22, it’s recorded that 70 people of the household of Jacob went down into Egypt. Yet in Acts 7:14-15, Stephen is recorded as saying, “After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died.” Bible commentators have tried many ways to reconcile this discrepancy without success. The facts are that the Hebrew Masoretic text reads 70. Stephen is apparently quoting from the Septuagint, which reads 75.
If God is to be viewed as directly orchestrating the writing of Scripture, then God moved the writer of the Pentateuch to use the number 70 and Stephen or Luke, who wrote the account of Stephen’s speech, to use the number 75. However, it should be apparent Stephen was simply recalling the Septuagint rendering during his speech. What makes this all the more interesting is that it’s reported that a fragment of Exodus, chapter one, was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran which renders the passage in question as 75 souls. So now we have different renderings in separate Hebrew texts along with the Greek text.
Again, skeptics see all these kinds of discrepancies as indicative of the Scriptures being strictly manmade documents and not in any way connected to a supernatural entity being involved in the development of these documents.
In Ezra 2:3-64 and in Nehemiah 7:8-66 is a listing of the family groups that returned to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity. Each list ends with a total number of 42,360 people. However, if you compare the lists, conflicting numbers are given for a number of the families listed. For example, for the family of Arah, Ezra records there were 775 and Nehemiah records there were 652. For the family of Zattu, Ezra records 945 and Nehemiah records 845. Of the over 40 families listed, there are 17 differences between what Ezra wrote and what Nehemiah wrote. When you add up Ezra's numbers you get 29,818. When you add up Nehemiah's numbers you get 31,089. Yet both Ezra and Nehemiah list the total number as 42,360.
Some will argue that both Ezra and Nehemiah had identical numbers in the original writing of these documents and the numbers changed because of copyists' errors throughout history. Since we have no original documents, to say the original numbers were identical is an argument from silence and assuming the thing to be proved.
In 1st Chronicles 21 is the account of David taking a census. In this account we have David's General Joab reporting there were in Israel one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah. In 2nd Samuel 24 we have this same account except here we have Joab reporting there were in Israel eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand. So, who has the right number? Does it matter? Only if you insist on Scriptural inerrancy.
Let’s look at a few more number discrepancies.
2nd Kings 24:8-9: Jehoiachin was eighteen* years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. (NIV, KJV).
2nd Chronicles 36:9: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD (KJV).
The 2nd Kings account has Jehoiachin at eighteen years old when he became king and the 2nd Chronicles account has him at eight years old when he became king. The Hebrew word for “eight” in 2nd Kings and 2nd Chronicles is šə·mō·neh and means eight. However, in the Hebrew Masoretic text, 2nd Kings 24:8 has 18 while 2nd Chronicles 36:9 has eight. 2nd Chronicles leaves out the Hebrew word for ten, (עֶשְׂרֵ֤ה). This word turns 8 into 18. The 2nd Kings account includes this word alongside of šə·mō·neh and that is why it is the number 18. The 2nd Chronicles account does not include this word and that is why the number is 8.
The Septuagint translation (Hebrew to Greek) of 2 Chronicles 36:9 renders it as eighteen even though the Hebrew of this passage in the Masoretic text reads “eight.” The NIV does the same as well as a number of other translations. Therefore, these translations use the 2nd Kings rendering to translate the 2nd Chronicles passage.
So, what is it? Is it eighteen or eight? Was this a Masoretic text copyist error? Was this error present in texts being used by the Masoretic text translators and simply carried over into the Masoretic text? Was this an error at all? Was עֶשְׂרֵ֤ה left out of the 2nd Chronicles text when it was originally written? Was this word included in the original text of 2nd Chronicles 36:9? Was it in the original writing of the 2nd Kings account or was it added later? We can't know the answer to any of these questions because we have no original writings nor do we have early copies of these writings. However, none of this really matters unless you insist on Scriptural inerrancy.
Both texts clearly show Jehoiachin became king and reigned for a short time. There is no reason to believe this is not a valid historical fact. The fact that it is recorded that he did evil in the sight of the Lord indicates he probably was eighteen when he began to reign. Therefore, the Chronicles text that we have of his age is probably in error, either a Masoretic text copyist error, an error in a manuscript used in the production of the Masoretic text or an error on the part of the original author of this passage. Now let’s look at 2nd Kings 8:26.
2nd Kings 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel (KJV).
2nd Chronicles 22:2: Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri (KJV).
The Hebrew words rendered “two and twenty” in the 2nd Kings passage mean twenty-two and is rendered accordingly in the KJV. The Hebrew words rendered “forty and two” in the 2nd Chronicles passage is from two Hebrew words that mean forty-two and rendered accordingly in the KJV. Both these passages are translations of the Masoretic Hebrew text which is what the KJV translators primarily used to make their translation. The Masoretic text appears to be in error in 2nd Chronicles 22:2 as it is clear from 2nd Chronicles 21:20 that Amaziah’s father Jehoram died at age forty. Amaziah certainly wasn’t older than his father when he became king.
Despite the Masoretic text showing “forty-two” for the Chronicles passage, because of the clarification provided by 2nd Chronicles 21:25, most English translations use the 2nd Kings passage numbers of "twenty-two" when translating 2nd Chronicles 21:2. Consequently, you will see most English translations of 2nd Chronicles 22:2 showing Ahaziah to be twenty-two when he began to reign. This includes the Septuagint.
Here we have what would appear to be a copyist error on the part of the scribes who produced the Masoretic text which was a text used by the translators of the KJV and other English versions. On the other hand, since we can’t know what the original text of 2nd Chronicles said because we have no originals, we can’t say with complete certainty whether we have here an error in translation or an outright contradiction of the 2nd Kings text.
If this should be a contradiction, it would not affect the general historical validity of the reign of Ahaziah. There would be no reason to believe Ahaziah didn’t exist and reign for the one year as recorded. The fact we have two separate accounts of this event gives credence to it occurring. Whether what we have here is an actual Scriptural contradiction or a Scriptural scribal error, it does show that the Hebrew Scriptures that have come down to us over the centuries are not inerrant. Different Hebrew texts will at times have different wording.
Skeptics note that if copyists made mistakes in copying numbers correctly over the centuries, one has to wonder how many other copying mistakes have been made and to what extent such mistakes have created a narrative different from what was intended in the original document and how such difference affects the development of religious doctrine.
New Testament number discrepancies:
Was it one or two demon possessed men? In three of the Gospels (Matthew 8, Mark 5, Luke 8), we have the account of Jesus casting out demons and sending them into a herd of pigs. The details of this event are pretty much the same in the three Gospels in which this account appears with one major exception. Matthew records that it was two demon possessed men from whom Jesus cast out demons and Mark and Luke record that it was one demon possessed man out of whom the demons were cast out. Either Matthew is correct and Mark and Luke are incorrect or Mark and Luke are correct and Matthew is incorrect.
Some Christian apologists argue that Mark and Luke were not of the Twelve and didn't personally witness this event. They were using a secondary source about this event that may have contained information about only one demon possessed man. Matthew, being one of the Twelve, may have been an eye witness and actually saw two demon possessed men. This, however, does not take away from the fact that Mark and Luke report one possessed man and Matthew reports two possessed men. Their reports are not consistent. Luke's report in particular appears to indicate that Jesus was dealing with one man and not two.
Matthew 8:28: When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way.
Mark 5:1: They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the tombs to meet him.
Luke 8:26-27: They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee. When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs.
In his letter to the Corinthian church, Paul lists the order in which Jesus appeared to His followers subsequent to His resurrection and before his ascension to the Father. Paul writes the following:
1 Corinthians 15:3-5: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
Paul writes that after His resurrection; Jesus appeared to the Twelve. This appears to be a reference to the twelve disciples Jesus chose who are listed in Mark 3:16-18. The problem is that when Jesus appeared to the disciples after His resurrection, only eleven of the twelve disciples were alive. Judas had killed himself prior to Christ's resurrection and his replacement Matthias wasn't chosen until after Jesus ascended to the Father. There is no record of Jesus appearing to the disciples after His ascension. It is apparent Paul is simply thinking in terms of the twelve when he made the statement that he did even though only eleven were alive when Jesus appeared to them. Is this a problem? Only if you insist on every word of Scripture being inerrant.
In 1st Corinthians 10:8, Paul writes that “We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died.” The “some of them” Paul refers to appear to be those in Israel who died in a plague because of sexual sins. Numbers 25:1: “While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women.” Numbers 25:9: “but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.” As can be seen, Paul is off by a thousand. Again, not a problem unless you insist on Scriptural inerrancy.
Skeptics believe that it is discrepancies such as these, and the many others cited above and the many more that could be cited, that gives evidence to the Biblical Scriptures being unreliable.
Author’s perspective:
In view of the foregoing examples of inconsistences, seeming contradictions and other anomalies found in the Biblical Scriptures, it should be apparent that the Scriptures are not an inerrant set of documents. It should be apparent that God did not dictate the Biblical narrative to the Biblical writers and they just robotically wrote it down.
The Biblical narrative is the result of writers recording information based on their own insights, understandings, available source material and developed perspectives as they reflected on events they write about. In Paul saying 23,000 rather than 24,000 was probably nothing more than Paul recalling the Book of Numbers passage in his mind and simply making a mistake as to the number. We make these kinds of mistakes all the time. Such mistakes don’t normally change the overall substance of what is being said. But such mistakes do show the Scriptures to not be inerrant as is falsely believed by many Christians, including Christian apologists.
The matter of New Testament writers seeing many Old Testament sayings and events as being fulfilled in Christ appears to be problematic. If indeed New Testament writers are seeing Old Testament sayings and events as prophetic of events in the life of Jesus when there is no evidence of this in the Old Testament context of these sayings and events, this is a concern. If, on the other hand, New Testament writers are seeing Old Testament sayings and events as having not a prophetic fulfillment but a parallel or greater fulfillment in Christ, this would make their perspectives more reasonable.
For a much greater discussion of the issues addressed in Part-Five of this series, and a comprehensive overview of how the Biblical Scriptures came to be, go to http://theologicalperspectives.com/scriptural-reliability
Conclusion:
This concludes this series on skepticism and Christianity. As stated at the beginning of this series, I have endeavored to present the viewpoints of both skeptics and Christians without drawing conclusions as to their truth or falsehood. I leave it to you the reader to evaluate the evidence and draw conclusions accordingly. I have included in this series a number of links to other essays that deal in much greater depth with issues only briefly discussed in this series. Hopefully these essays will provide information that will be helpful in determining whether it is the skeptic or the Christian position that is the most probable.