I’m not sure if this belongs in this forum, or the General one, but as it has to do with Bible verses I thought I’d throw it in here.

I (believe - I may be wrong) have a fairly literal interpretation of Biblical events, and I do believe the words of the Bible are given by God to whomever he appointed to jot them down.

I am curious as to how people here “reconcile” supposed “inconsistencies” in the texts?  I will take a well-known example: Peter’s denial after Jesus’ arrest (e.g. Mk 14:30 says the rooster shall crow twice; Matthew 26:34 ; Luke 22:34 ; John 18:27 says one crow was sufficient).

I realise that this will not be in the final examination, but I am curious as to how people see and read these.  I’ll lay my cards on the table and say I believe one of a number of things:
[list]
[*] - perhaps - (assuming Matthew and Luke [no, not Messrs Williams & Stevens, but the Gospel writers! ;-) ] used Mark to some extent) perhaps Mark had the wrong end of the stick [though, considering he was supposedly told this by Peter that troubles me] and the others corrected it; or
[*] - perhaps - it was simply a different recollection
[/list:u]

I see no real problem with any of these; esp. for such a - to me - incidental incident [I am not saying this incident means nothing, but whether one or two crows happened is hardly the key point!]

However, I have by certain people been roasted over coals and told my explanation is completely wrong.  I have heard from some that:

[list]
[*] there is absolutely no inconsistency: each represents a “view” and the rooster crowed up to six times, with three denials before the third crow, and three after
[to me, this seems to be going a tad far - surely the “inconsistency” can be acknowledged???]
[*] the original manuscripts (autographs? is that the “smart theologian word”? ;-) ) were correct, but they got changed down the years
[I understand monks never copied as we know the word, but really, would they strive to make it inconsistent!?!?]
[/list:u]

as well as various other explanations I have forgotten.  I have given reasons why I cannot accept these: perhaps I am a bit too stubborn and self-believing, I do not know.

Over to you.  As I said, I know it is not a life and death matter: I am simply curious as to what others believe and whether or not there are other paths I can tread without compromising the correctness of the Bible.  Or I am keen to discover if I was too hasty in casting aside my being dragged over the coals and I should listen to those explantions.

Thanks,
Ian.

[ Edited @ 20.10 to remove a stray [/list]! ]

Biblical diversity

Good evening Ian,

Perhaps the most ‘theologically correct’ approach might be to labour over who used what as a source when compilling the gospel materials,etc.etc.

However for what it is worth I don’t see any inconsistancy in those accounts; all could be correct.  If in one account Jesus was quoted as saying that a rooster would crow exactly twice but only after Peter had denied exactly three times and another quoted Jesus as saying that the rooster would crow exactly once after Peter had denied exactly so many times; we would have a problem.

As I read those gospels I see four different accounts of the one episode that differ in both detail and focus.  Lets look at them in order.

Matt 26:34 I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.”

How many times did Jesus say the Rooster would crow?  Well He didn’t give a number of times.

Mark 14:30 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”

Firstly it seems some early manuscripts do not say “twice” but since the ones we deal with do we should accept that.
Here there is no conflict with Matthew, we are just told something that Matthew did not tell us.

Luke 22:34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

Luke agrees with Matthew, however still there is no conflict; only differing detail.  Did Luke copy from Matthew or visa versa? Does it really matter?

John 18:25-27 As Simon Peter stood warming himself, he was asked, “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it, saying, “I am not.”
One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, “Didn’t I see you with him in the olive grove?” Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.

John only records two denials and one instance of Rooster crowing; however he does not stipulate that Peter did not deny Jesus a third time.

The gospels are supposed to be either ‘eye witness’ accounts of the life and ministry and commission of Jesus, or be based on ‘eye witness’ accounts by others.  It would be absurd to suppose that during the time of Peter’s denial all eyes were upon him.  To have slightly varying accounts only adds to the credibility of the gospels.  Matthew, or his informant saw things from a certain perspective, Mark likewise and Luke we know gathered and collated material.  John’s focus is very different from the three synoptics on most if not the entire gospel account.

I’m starting to waffle a bit so I should just attempt to summarise and quit before I make a fool of myself.

The way I view the gospels is that they are given from a different view point and this for me at least adds significantly to the credibility of those gospels.  Think what it would be like if they were all four of them ‘word perfect’.  Read one youv’e read em all!  No thanks.

But I see you have basically discounted my view; I can give no other than the one I have.

there is absolutely no inconsistency: each represents a “view” and the rooster crowed up to six times, with three denials before the third crow, and three after
(to me, this seems to be going a tad far - surely the “inconsistency” can be acknowledged???)

I don’t think I want to say how many times that rooster crowed; But they do tend to repeat themselve a lot don’t they?
Nevertheless I see it would do no harm to admit an inconsistancy where there is one.  But in this case I don’t think inconsistancy is really the right way to approach the passages; and for the reasons I have given.

Doug

Hi Ian

the original manuscripts (autographs? is that the “smart theologian word”? ;-) ) were correct, but they got changed down the years

I agree with you on this one, I also find this explanation unacceptable. The Greek word translated twice (dis) should be kept. Some ancient manuscripts did omit this word, but it is more likely that it was omitted in order to conform with the other gospels rather than a copyist error. This is at least the consensus of most commentators that I know of.

there is absolutely no inconsistency: each represents a “view” and the rooster crowed up to six times, with three denials before the third crow, and three after
[to me, this seems to be going a tad far - surely the “inconsistency” can be acknowledged???]

I agree totally with you here.

In short, I don’t have to much problems in believing that there are some inconsistencies in the Bible. The problem comes when one is told that if you believe that there are some inconsistencies then you can’t believe in the rest of the story. In other words if you reject one thing, by logic you should reject everything. This is absurd and dangerous thinking. I know of people who were convinced that there were some inconsistencies in the Bible and because of being brought up with this logic or had others drum into them “only way of believing in the Bible” left the faith. This all or nothing approach which I once had, I no longer buy. Mind you, I’m not saying there are many discrepencies or even major ones.

One can ask did the Biblical writers themselves believe the Bible had discrepancies? Maybe?

For example, did Jesus allude to discrepancies in Matthew 19:3-9 when he taught that Deut 24 needed to be corrected by Genesis?

What about Paul in Galatians 3:11-12? In v.11 Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 to show that “the righteous shall live by faith.” In v. 12 Paul quotes Leviticus 18:5 as an example that shows that life is by following the law. Paul juxtaposes these two verses to show that they are incompatible. Paul rather places Lev 18:5 in line with Deut 27:26 (Galatians 3:10).

If Paul and Jesus see incompatibilities in the Bible (and I would say the above examples of Matt 9 and Gal 3 are of a more serious nature than whether the rooster crowed 1, 2, 3 or 6 times) we should not be to overly concerned what others might think on such a minute problem of the roosters crow. You’re spot on, definitely not a life death issue, though some will tell you otherwise.

This probably lends support to the theory that the “all or nothing” acceptance of the Bible is probably a product of enlightenment thinking. An interesting article on this issue is found here
http://www.quodlibet.net/perry-inerrancy.shtml

Re: Biblical diversity

Thanks Doug & Joe for your thoughtful responses.

[quote author="Doug McEachern"]I’m starting to waffle a bit so I should just attempt to summarise and quit before I make a fool of myself.

Please don’t think that: you were in no danger of that!

[quote author="Doug McEachern"]The way I view the gospels is that they are given from a different view point and this for me at least adds significantly to the credibility of those gospels.  Think what it would be like if they were all four of them ‘word perfect’.  Read one youv’e read em all!  No thanks.

But I see you have basically discounted my view; I can give no other than the one I have.

I am sorry if it came across that particular way, as it was not my intention.  Nor was it my intention to belittle / denigrate anyone’s beliefs...I am too honest and forthright at times, and my words may come across as saying, “I’d never believe that!!!”, when I mean to say, “I have some trouble believing that; I do not understand.” Please bear with me.

What I meant in terms of “each represents a “view"” [I admit this was phrased poorly] was that each part represented one aspect, and one would need to join them altogether and slot them all around to achieve no inconsistency.  I realise this may be your view on the passage [and your explanation gave me pause to consider whether there really is an inconsistency here], but as I said I have trouble with the “no inconsistencies ever” line: I agree that the important message is there: whether the rooster crowed once or twenty times, whether 23000 or 24000 were killed in an OT battle is no great concern to me; I was simply stating what I believed. 

Perhaps Peter’s denial was a poor choice [then again, I have learnt a lot already and it has a led to an interesting exchange, so it is not wasted]: my main point was to ask people how they deal with “inconsistencies” [note the quotes]: do you believe they can be explained?  do you ignore them?  do you believe something else?  I am curious: I truly have no other agenda.

In a sense I believe we view similarly, and your point on the differences adding to the credibility rings true with me: I forgot to add that in my last post.  One of the reasons I am so convinced of the credibility of the Bible is the fact that everything has not been smoothed out to give one “version”: the different methods and literary characteristics shine forth [as well as other issues like the supposed “heroes/heroines” of the OT and NT being shown to be fallen, sinful men - worse than other “heathens” in actions at times - if I was making this stuff up there’d be none of that!]

Thanks also for your in-depth analysis of the passages.  I have to admit I took some liberties and read Matthew’s “rooster crows” as ‘once’, rather than a general statement.  Your explanation has provided me with another view and I do take that in for thought.

Joe: thanks for the link.  Interesting reading!  I am only up to point 5 and as the sandman draws near I think I better stop and have another read tomorrow.  Some very similar views to my thoughts as well as some further food for thought.

Your paragraphs on “all or nothing” struck me as well.  This is an issue I have a lot of problems with, and I am at a loss to explain myself at times to others.  The article you linked did provide some explanations and “rebuttals” - for want of a better word.  Is that how you [and others out there] go about explaining your view that if you admit one inconsistency you do not doubt the whole Bible? - everything needs to be taken into consideration in terms of genre, purpose, etc.

I was told in the days of my independent church - and by some people in many mainstream churches today - that I am on the slippery slope and I have no firm foundation to stand on if I admit that there are certain, inconsequential, inconsistencies.  Perhaps I am, and I don’t know it - which makes me a very pathetic man - but I do not believe so [well, I wouldn’t, is the response].  How can you deal with this?  Can you deal with this?  Or am I mistaken, and I need to look anew?

Getting off topic a bit, so I best finish.  As you can tell, pre-teenage and teenage experiences in an extremely fundamental church [e.g. KJV only, the NIV was a product of Satan and the Pope to give you some idea!!!] still affect me to this day - the horrid rapture videos that got me scared every time it thundered; the warnings against TV and radio leading you to Hell [though, thinking of Big Brother… ;-)] ... God: save me from this guilt!!!

Ever the waffler; sorry, ;-) Thanks to Joe and Doug again, and I look forward to more responses.

Ian.

[ Edited @22.30 - for someone who wants to be an English teacher, my speling is apalinnng!!! ;-) ;-)]

Hi Ian,

I tend more along Joe’s line than Dougs, though respecting Doug’s viewpoint, I generally find historical syntheses of the gospels uninspiring and forced.

On another thread a long time ago I rehearsed my understanding of the relationship between the histories contained in the bible and actual history (that is, the events that really happened whether we have access to them or not). You will find it at this link (using my new-found BBCode skills for your benefit!)

This deals (in my way) with the problem of historical accuracy in the bible more generally. I probably have to think through the finer points of it more closely, but for the moment it seems to me to keep room for confessional evangelicalism without sacrificing intelligence on the altar of faith.

If you just read the stuff under point 4 on my second post, and all of my third post, you should get the general idea (they are long enough!)

Feel free to fire back with any questions.

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

Matt, great post in the link you provided. I use to subscribe to those creation mag’s also. I just received a letter to ask me if I would like to renew or give a donation. Like yourself, I have my serious doubts about Evolution but if it is true I couldn’t care less. I’ll let the scientists work that out. Regardless, it doesn’t prove anything to me.

Ian, I’ve seen those rapture movies. I thought they were funny. I know several seriously dedicated “rapturists” and am even related to some. A relative of mine has labelled some video’s explaining the rapture and told her sister where these video’s are for when she gets raptured. But hopefully she can be “saved” in time so as not to go through the mark, persecution and execution.

Is that how you [and others out there] go about explaining your view that if you admit one inconsistency you do not doubt the whole Bible? - everything needs to be taken into consideration in terms of genre, purpose, etc.

I believe we need to consider genre, form, setting, so on. I am also of the opinion that to understand the Bible we need to study the history of the time and place relevant, its customs, influences and so on. Matthew has already expressed these ideas in the link he has given. For example, looking at the Ancient Near East texts such as the Enuma Elish, a Babylonian creation story and how it relates to Genesis 1 and what influence it may have had. Also, in regards to the NT, what Persian, Hellenistic and other influences shaped Jewish thinking during the 2nd temple period leading up to and during the time of Christ, and so on.

But I understand where you’re coming from in regards to your experience with those within the church who tell you you’re on a “slippery slope.” I currently go to a church that holds on to inerrency and would not accept what I have said about there being discrepencies in the Bible. I don’t tend to say too much in regards to this issue, I don’t think anyone knows, though I think my Pastor may have a suspicion, or maybe not? There’s no need to rock the boat, I have no right to. If it ever becomes an issue I would leave quietly and go elsewhere. It’s a good church I go to, and I am happy there. It’s a matter of weighing up what is important.

Good Evening Joe,

I certainly share your hope that this person will be saved.
Doug

But I understand where you’re coming from in regards to your experience with those within the church who tell you you’re on a “slippery slope.”

Indeed. Fundamentalism to liberalism is a slippery slope. There is no denying that.

The way to avoid sliding down the slippery slope is to get off it, changing to the different paradigms of evangelical thought. Worked for me, anyway (though I understand some fundamentalists find it hard to tell the difference, it depends how tightly they draw the circle of fellowship!)

Matt

P.S. I don’t use fundamentalist as a deprecatory term, rather as a description of the kind of thinking described on my linked post: freezing doctrine in time rather than keeping it exposed to persistent review.

Sorry Doug. I meant Ian. I’ve corrected it.

Good evening Ian and Joe,

Perhaps Peter’s denial was a poor choice [then again, I have learnt a lot already and it has a led to an interesting exchange, so it is not wasted]: my main point was to ask people how they deal with “inconsistencies” [note the quotes]: do you believe they can be explained? do you ignore them? do you believe something else? I am curious: I truly have no other agenda.

Ian I would answer your question by splitting inconsistencies into two general categories.
Firstly there are ‘inconsistencies that on closer examination are found not to be inconsistencies after all.  These can be explained.
Secondly there are inconsistencies that just defy explaination.
Those I will freely admit as inconsistencies and more or less move on from there.  I can’t lay hold of one that I can’t explain just now however I admit there is one to do with numbers; 2000 in one account and 3000 in another account.(from memory)

I am curious about the discrepencies or incompatabilities in Matt 19:3-9.  I can’t see any.
Was Jesus really correcting Deut 24 or was He correcting the distortions that had been introduced?
Look at the flow of the conversation, and I’ll summarise it to save looking it up.  The Jews ask Jesus if it is ok to divorce for any reason at all.  His reply is to direct them to first principles by concatenating Gen 1:17 with Gen 2:24(bypassing verse 23).  The idea of a one flesh relationship does not look forward to divorce as a planned outcome.  The Jews then protest on the basis of Deut 24, to which Jesus replies that was a consession because of their hard hearts.  It is then that Jesus introduces the only escape clause allowable; fornication. 
From memory Deut 24 allowed divorce on the grounds of an exposed impurity, probably fornication, which is not significantly different to His escape clause given in Matt 19 and also in Matt 5:32.(which is given also because our hardness of heart?)

I am still trying to see what you are refering to Joe with your Gal 3 example.  I don’t want to rush in and go off on a tangent from what you have in mind.

Doug

Thanks to all.

Matt: thanks for your link to the previous discussion which, like Joe, I found useful and informative [and I discovered we have some very experienced scholars of Biblical language here!!!].  I am sorry if I am treading over old ground - I had a quick look through past topics before I started this in case it had been discussed before.  The “freezing doctrine in time” especially resonanted with me due to past experiences: it was either that or nothing: it is surprising that experiences 15+ years ago still affect me so much.  It was great to read - here and in the other thread - from people who have a clear view and belief the Bible is God’s authoratative Word, yet do not have the “frozen in time” view.  I also am thankful for the fact although we hear may differ on some issues, we can acknowledge in each other’s views and acknowledge each other as Christians: something that never happened in the church of my youth.

Joe: I’m glad you can enjoy those videos, but even now - I am 26 for goodness’ sake! - I cannot get over them!  If I get home and my parents aren’t there, though the car is, “Rapture!” is the first thought that goes through my mind.  I used to think when I was 10 and this happened, it was me alone against the Anti-Christ!!! ;-)

[quote author="Doug McEachern"]Ian I would answer your question by splitting inconsistencies into two general categories.
Firstly there are ‘inconsistencies that on closer examination are found not to be inconsistencies after all.  These can be explained.
Secondly there are inconsistencies that just defy explaination.
Those I will freely admit as inconsistencies and more or less move on from there.  I can’t lay hold of one that I can’t explain just now however I admit there is one to do with numbers; 2000 in one account and 3000 in another account.(from memory)

Thanks Doug: very clear.  If I ask you to repeat it enough times it may just sink into this dull brain of mine. ;-) I agree with the attitude of moving on from your second-category.  As I alluded above, however, I was once told there were no inconsistencies whatsoever - whereas, as you wrote, there are some numerical differences in the OT - which to me make no real impact / trouble whatsoever!  I was always told if I admitted one inconsistency, no matter how inconsequential, the whole deck of cards of my false belief would come crushing down. 

As Matt said, it is not necessarily a trip to liberal theology, but a change in paradigm.

[quote author="Doug McEachern"]
I am curious about the discrepencies or incompatabilities in Matt 19:3-9.  I can’t see any.
Was Jesus really correcting Deut 24 or was He correcting the distortions that had been introduced?
Look at the flow of the conversation, and I’ll summarise it to save looking it up.  The Jews ask Jesus if it is ok to divorce for any reason at all.  His reply is to direct them to first principles by concatenating Gen 1:17 with Gen 2:24(bypassing verse 23).  The idea of a one flesh relationship does not look forward to divorce as a planned outcome.  The Jews then protest on the basis of Deut 24, to which Jesus replies that was a consession because of their hard hearts.  It is then that Jesus introduces the only escape clause allowable; fornication. 
From memory Deut 24 allowed divorce on the grounds of an exposed impurity, probably fornication, which is not significantly different to His escape clause given in Matt 19 and also in Matt 5:32.(which is given also because our hardness of heart?)

I tend to agree with you here Doug.  I have not looked into it deeply, but I see it as Jesus explaining that it was due to the hardness of our [as a human race] hearts and our sinful nature that Moses gave other ways out.  As you said Doug, the “one flesh” relationship does not look to divorce.

How this relates to today I am not sure: I believe God would not a woman being beaten senseless to stay with an abusive husband...is there cause for an escape here?  I see Jesus’ comments on the one flesh being spiritual as well as physical.  Not sure where I am going here so I better stop and think more.

Thanks all; God bless,
Ian.

Joe: I’m glad you can enjoy those videos, but even now - I am 26 for goodness’ sake! - I cannot get over them! If I get home and my parents aren’t there, though the car is, “Rapture!” is the first thought that goes through my mind. I used to think when I was 10 and this happened, it was me alone against the Anti-Christ!!! ;-)

Hey, I know what you’re talking about! I had the same experience!

My parents took me to a Youth for Christ rally when I was a little kid (I don’t know, maybe about 8 years old) and it was the most frightening film I had ever seen - lines to get 666 literally written on your forehead in order to buy bread, running from authorities down motorways and being recognised as ‘markless’ and dobbed in, the phone cord just suddenly hanging after the rapture, and the guillotine on the people who missed the second coming of Christ but somehow it is implied still have a stab at salvation! *Shudder*

Like Ian, every time I couldn’t find my parents after seeing that film I lived in fear. One day I blurted it out to my mum, and she just said, “Darling, when Jesus returns, everyone will see it, because they’ll be on their knees.” After that I was fine.

My mum knows better than any stupid movie. Go mum!

Sorry Ian and Matt. I didn’t mean to make light on the imapct those movies can have. I was fortunate as I was in my 20’s when I first saw those movies.

Doug in regards to Matthew 19, you are coorect to say that Deut 24 “was a consession because of their hard hearts.” Being a concession it was not part of the expressed will of God from the beginning (Gen 1:27, 2:24).

Moses’ concession did not nullify God’s original word. God hates divorce. It is not in accord with his will. The creation account (as Jesus argued from) reveals this. Divorce was never intended to be normal. However, it was given to avoid abuse. The writer of Deut 24 has put in a clause that allows for an action (divorce) which is not truly reflected in God’s expressed will as revealed in creation. A paraphrase of the issue might go something like this, “Whatever God has combined let no man separate, but because of the abuse that is going around I (Moses) will permit divorce for certain situations.” Therefore, Deut 24 does not seem to be able to be fully harmonised with Gen 1:27 and 2:24 as expressed in Matthew 19.

In Galatians 3:11, “the righteous shall live by faith” is a quote from Hab 2:4. Paul uses this to support the idea that salvation is by faith. Righteousness is by faith alone, not by the law. Paul has set up an antithesis with v. 10 “for all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse.” Paul further develops his argument that the law cannot bring about salvation in verse 12. In verse 12 Paul is saying that the law is not based on faith and he quotes Lev 18:5 as evidence of this. Paul uses Leviticus to suggest that the law has to do with “doing” not faith. To pursue salvation by the law one is cursed. Lev 18:5 says, “Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them.” Its use here is positive. But the manner in which Paul uses it is negative, because the law is not based on faith (Gal 3:12). For Paul, we cannot live under the principle as given in Leviticus. The Leviticus passage cannot be Christianised. Paul has set Habakkuk against Leviticus in regards to how a Christian should live.

There were those during Jesus’ time, that did believe that there were discrepancies. Hillel and Philo noted discrepancies in the OT, therefore if Paul and Jesus recognised them, it should not come as a major surprise.

I’m not offended, Joe, it’s funny to look back on now (though I’m amazed my normally conservative parents let me see it so young - what are they rated? M?)

Also once I knew what premillenial theology was I discovered the rapture as they portrayed it wasn’t really a very convincing mesh of the biblical witness.

Ian, does it just run through your head as a reflex, or do you still believe in the rapture? If so, maybe that’s an issue we should discuss on another thread?

Matt

[Tangent to main topic]

Joe: like Matt I am not offended - it is funny to look back on.

You must have seen the exact same video I saw Matt: you described it to a T!

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]Ian, does it just run through your head as a reflex, or do you still believe in the rapture? If so, maybe that’s an issue we should discuss on another thread?

A reflex definitely!  As with you, I have by the grace of God moved on from that belief.  Thanks for the concern, though.

[/Tangent to main topic]

On the tangent of the Rapture, the other day I was at work cleaning one of 3 buildings at one particular factory complex. I vacuumed the office whistling away praying for every one as I do, mopped and cleaned the toilets and moved into the back room. I thought gee something is very strange here it’s too quiet, opened up the door into the factory area and it was dead quiet not a soul in sight.

Doo doo doo doo doo doo etc etc etc. Many thoughts came to mind, was it a saturday?, Had I come in on the wrong day?, Yes then the horrible thought of the rapture crossed my mind - yes I am 36 years old reasonbly mature in the faith, thinking albeit for a few seconds “Left Behind” etc.

Very sobering and spooky. I cleaned the floor anyway, went up to the next building where thankfully there were lot’s of people and was told the machines had broke down during the night.

I tell you one thing though, it has made me rethink my position in Christ.

craig