At Mr. Jackson's request, the proposition I will be defending was simplified to read as follows: "Resolved: The Bible contains materials that disprove its claim to be divinely inspired." In his first affirmative manuscript, Mr. Jackson defined "the Bible" as "the 66 books making up the Old and New Testaments in the volume commonly known as the Holy Bible." This definition is acceptable to me as was his explanation of divine inspiration as a process by which "the message" of the Bible "was sent out, breathed out, from God" in words that "the Spirit chose" so that the final product was a message from God that was "free from error." The only key terms left for me to explain, then, are "materials" and "disprove." By the former, I simply mean the contents of the Bible, its history and dramas, its genealogies, its poetry and proverbs, its prophecies, its biographies, its epistles, and every other literary type contained within it. I will be contending that these materials are of such a discrepant nature as to disprove, i. e., show to be false or erroneous, the claim of divine inspiration as defined above.
In our preliminary discussions, I suggested a more specific proposition to Mr. Jackson: "Intertextual contradictions and inconsistencies; historical, chronological, and scientific inaccuracies; failed prophecies; absurdities; moral atrocities attributed to God's will; plagiarisms; and other disparities recorded in the Bible disprove its claim of divine inspiration." Although we eventually settled for simpler wording, I believe my proposition as originally stated will give the readers a better understanding of my position. I will be arguing that the Bible is so riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and discrepancies that it is completely illogical to believe that its authorship was guided and protected by an omniscient, omnipotent deity.
In sharp contrast to Mr. Jackson's beg-the-question methods, I will use a logical approach in affirming my proposition. My strategy will focus on proving the soundness of the following modus ponens syllogism:
Major Premise: If it is the case that the Bible possesses properties so obviously erroneous as to exclude all possibility of omniscient participation in its authorship, then the Bible was written without the guidance of an omniscient deity.
Minor Premise: It is the case that the Bible possesses properties so obviously erroneous as to exclude all possibility of omniscient participation in its authorship.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible was written without the guidance of an omniscient deity.
Mr. Jackson must accept the soundness of this syllogism or else surrender everything he argued in defense of his own proposition. As noted earlier, he said in defining his proposition that "divine inspiration" was a process by which the message of the Bible "was sent out, breathed out from God" in such a way that the final product was "free from error." If I can demonstrate the truth of the antecedent (the if statement in my major premise), which later becomes the minor premise of the syllogism, then Mr. Jackson will have to admit that I have proven my case, because an omniscient deity could not make mistakes, no matter how insignificant, without casting serious doubt on his omniscience. Since I know that Mr. Jackson is in complete agreement with this, I can turn immediately to proving that obviously erroneous properties do exist in the Bible text.
The problem now facing me is that I hardly know where to begin. There are so many contradictions in the Bible that I am overwhelmed with the joy of knowing that "my cup runneth over." The Bible is filled with doctrinal and philosophical contradictions. In one place, God is presented as infinitely kind and benevolent and in another as incredibly cruel and barbaric. We are told that people both will and will not be held responsible for the sins of others (Exodus 20:5; Ezekiel 18:20). One psalmist tells us that he has never "seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread" (Ps. 37:25) in flagrant contradiction of both our own observations of life and other psalms too numerous to list that lamented the constant affliction and suffering of the righteous while the wicked seemed to prosper.
But doctrinal and philosophical contradictions are easily rationalized by those determined to believe in the harmony of the Bible no matter how convincing the evidence to the contrary, so perhaps the best place for me to begin in proving that discrepancies exist in the Bible would be with factual mistakes so obvious that no one can deny them. Such a mistake is found in 2 Chron. 21:20 through 22:1-2, where the death of King Jehoram and the subsequent succession to the throne of his son Ahaziah is recorded. This passage reports the following "facts": [1] Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he began to reign, (21:20), [2] at the time of his death, he had reigned for eight years (21:20), [3] the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, Jehoram's youngest son, king in his father's stead (22:1), and [4] Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign (22:2).
One doesn't have to be a mathematical wizard to see contradictions in the "facts" reported by the "inspired" writer of this passage. If Jehoram began to reign when he was thirty-two and if he reigned for eight years, then he was forty years old when he died. His son Ahaziah, who was made king in Jehoram's stead, was forty-two when he began to reign, so we have the incredible case of a son who was two years older than his father. Furthermore, Ahaziah was the youngest of Jehoram's sons, his older brothers having been slain by a band of Arabians (22:1). a name=bible>Thus, the situation becomes even more ridiculous. Jehoram was two years younger than his son Ahaziah and had even had sons older than Ahaziah. It could happen only in the Bible!
Discrepancies just as obvious as this one occur frequently in parallel texts of the Bible. Here are just a few of them:
A widely recognized rule of evidence declares that when two statements contradict each other they cannot both be right. They can both be wrong, but they can't both be right. In each of these examples, we have recorded statements concerning the same people involved in the same events, and yet there are contradictions involving key matters of chronology and computation. The only thing to conclude is that in each case at least one of the records is erroneous. If that is so, how can any rational person believe that these records were verbally inspired by an omniscient deity? Is Mr. Jackson's omniscient god unable to determine what year in the reign of a given king another king died or how old a king was when he began his reign? Are we to believe that a god who has numbered the very hairs of our heads (Matt. 10:30) was somehow unable to count prisoners of war to determine whether the number of horsemen captured in a battle was 700 or 7,000? If we can't trust omniscience in rather simple matters like these, how can we trust it to report accurately in more complex matters like the resurrection of Jesus?
Even Jesus Christ himself, if we are to believe that the gospel accounts are accurate in their portrayal of his life, contributed his share of contradictions to the Bible. When the Pharisees criticized his disciples for plucking grain on the sabbath day, Jesus said, "Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him" (Mark 2:25-26)? If Jesus ever made this statement, then one of two conclusions must follow: either he was confused about the incident he alluded to from the life of David or else the "inspired" writer of 1 Samuel incorrectly recorded the facts of the incident. Either way, the credibility of the Bible suffers serious damage.
If we are to assume the accuracy of the story in 1 Samuel 21, then Jesus made two factual mistakes in his statement: (1) he said that Abiathar was the high priest at the time of this incident, and (2) he indicated that David was in the company of others with whom he shared the showbread that the high priest gave to him. An examination of the original story, however, will establish that (1) Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was the priest David negotiated with and that (2) David was traveling alone at the time. The first error can be easily verified by reading 1 Samuel 21:1-2, where the text clearly states that Ahimelech was the priest, and the second error can be established by a proper interpretation of the context in which the story appears. During their meeting, David and Ahimelech referred to men who were with David, but these men were obviously fabricated as part of a lie that the fugitive David told Ahimelech in order to receive badly needed assistance. When Ahimelech saw David, he asked him, "Why art thou alone, and no man with thee" (1 Sam.21:1)? The question certainly indicates that Ahimelech saw no one with David, and that was because David was alone (according to the story). Desperate for food and weapons, David pretended to have men with him whom he had "appointed to such and such a place" (v:2) so that Ahimelech would believe his claim of being on a secret mission for the king.
Why would Jesus not have known the facts of this Old Testament story? The New Testament claims that he was the Son of God, the Word who "was in the beginning with God," the Word through whom "all things were made" (John 1:1-3). The answer is simple. If he had really been all of these things, he would have known. And if the Bible were in fact the verbally inspired word of an omniscient deity, such glaring mistakes as these would not be in it. As it is, we have to conclude one of the following: (1) Jesus actually made the mistakes noted above in his reference to the incident involving David and the showbread, (2) Jesus really reported the facts correctly, but Mark erred in the way he recorded them, or (3) the incident involving David and the showbread actually happened as Mark stated it, but the writer of 1 Samuel 21 erred in the way he recorded the story.
Whichever option Mr. Jackson chooses, serious damage will be done to his claim that the Bible is the verbally inspired, inerrant word of God. To say that he finds himself caught on the horns of a dilemma would be an understatement, as the following valid destructive dilemma (double modus tollens syllogism) clearly shows:
If the Bible is the verbally inspired, inerrant word of God, then Mark 2:25-26 must be true and accurate in all details.
If the Bible is the verbally inspired, inerrant word of God, then 1 Samuel 21:1-6 must be true and accurate in all details.
Either Mark 2:25-26 is not true and accurate in all details or 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is not true and accurate in all details.
Therefore, the Bible is not the verbally inspired, inerrant word of God.
The same valid destructive dilemma could be constructed from any of the parallel-text contradictions noted earlier, but this one alone is sufficient to prove that the Bible cannot be the verbally inspired, inerrant word of God. I will eagerly wait to see how Mr. Jackson tries to wiggle his way out of it.
Luke, the author of the book of Acts, and the Apostle Paul did not agree on when Paul first went to Jerusalem after his conversion at Damascus. Luke indicated that Paul left Damascus and went immediately to Jerusalem:
And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to kill him (Paul): but their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates also day and night that they might kill him: but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him (Acts 9:23-26).
Please notice that Luke had Paul in Damascus in one sentence (verse 25) and in Jerusalem in the next (verse 26). Clearly then Luke believed Paul left Damascus immediately after his conversion and went to Jerusalem.
In writing to the Galatian churches in defense of his right to apostleship, however, Paul told an entirely different story:
But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles: straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me; but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus" (Gal. 1:15-17).
Luke's account leaves no room for a three-year delay (Gal. 1:18) in Paul's return to Jerusalem. So who was right, Luke or Paul? And why would "verbally inspired" writers so obviously contradict each other in relating a fact as simple as the first time Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion?
So far I have only scratched the surface in establishing that the Bible contradicts itself, but these few examples are enough to prove the soundness of my modus ponens argument. I have proven that the Bible is not inerrant. Therefore, I am absolutely sure that it is not the verbally inspired word of God.
It can't be!
Go to Jackson's First Rebuttal.
