Mistakes in the Bible?
Rev. Dr. Jeffrey Khoo
At the True Life Bible Presbyterian Church in
Singapore
September 9, 2007
A young believer once asked his pastor this
question, "Pastor, are there any mistakes in the Bible?" The pastor
assures the young believer with what he claims to be an "honest"
answer, "There are no mistakes in the Bible that should cause you
any worry." Such an answer is hardly honest but the hissing of the
old serpent, "Yea, hath God said?" (Gen 3:1).
As faithful believers, we affirm without doubt
the Bible to be totally infallible and inerrant, our sole and
supreme authority of faith and practice. We affirm the Verbal
Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of
the Holy Scriptures and identify VPI and VPP Texts to be the Hebrew
Masoretic and Greek Received Texts on which the Reformation
Bible—the King James Bible—is based. But "what if some did not
believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is
written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and
mightest overcome when thou art judged." (Rom 3:3-4).
Unbelief of VPI and/or VPP has caused some to
fall short of believing that the Bible is 100% perfect, without any
mistake. "Where are the mistakes?" you ask. Let us look at a few of
the so-called "mistakes," and with the logic of faith, the Christian
who loves the Lord and His Word will see that they are not at all
mistakes.
Forty-two or Twenty-two?
Those who deny VPP believe that some words of God
have been lost and remain lost leading to a "scribal error" view of
the OT Scriptures. For instance, W Edward Glenny denies that God has
perfectly preserved His Word so that no words have been lost. He
says, "The evidence from the OT text suggests that such is not the
case. We might have lost a few words …" (One Bible Only?, p121).
Based on his "lost words" view of the Bible, he was quick to point
out "obvious discrepancies" in the OT like 2 Chronicles 22:2, and
pontificates, "These obvious discrepancies in the KJV and the Hebrew
manuscripts on which it is based show that none of them perfectly
preserved the inspired autographa." (One Bible Only?, p115).
Now, know that 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads
"forty-two" in the KJV. A number of the modern versions like the
NASV, NIV, and ESV read "twenty-two" instead. So which is the
original, inspired reading: "forty-two" (in KJV), or "twenty-two"
(in NASV, NIV, and ESV)? In making such a textual decision, we must
have a perfect standard, and that infallible and inerrant standard
is the inspired and preserved Hebrew Scripture, and not any
translation ancient or modern.
It is significant to note that every single
Hebrew manuscript reads "forty-two" (arebba’im wushetha’im) in 2
Chronicles 22:2. There is no evidence of lost words—every word to
the letter is preserved, and reads precisely as "forty-two" as
accurately translated in the KJV. If every Hebrew manuscript reads
"forty-two" in 2 Chronicles 22:2, then on what basis do the NASV,
NIV, and ESV change it to "twenty-two"? They change "forty-two" to
"twenty-two" on the basis of the Septuagint (LXX) which is a Greek
version of the Hebrew Scripture just like the NIV is an English
version of it. In other words, they use a version or translation to
correct the original Hebrew text! This is "Ruckmanism" no less!
A godly approach is one that presupposes the
present infallibility and inerrancy of God’s Word not only when it
speaks on salvation, but also when it speaks on history, geography
or science. "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom 3:4). Such
a godly approach to difficult passages seeks to compare (not
correct) Scripture with Scripture. There are two possible solutions
to the so-called "problem" or "error" in 2 Chronicles 22:2.
"Forty-two" could be either (1) Ahaziah’s years counted from the
beginning of the dynasty founded by Omri, or (2) the year in which
Ahaziah was actually seated as king though anointed as one at
"twenty-two" (2 Kgs 8:26). Whatever the answer may be, the truth and
fact is: the inspired and preserved Hebrew reading in 2 Chronicles
22:2 is "forty-two" and not "twenty-two," and no man has the right
to change or correct God’s Word by "conjectural emendation,"
taking heed to the serious warning not to add to
or subtract from the Holy Scriptures (Rev 22:18-19).
One Year or 30/40/…Years?
Now, let us look at the next text which is 1
Samuel 13:1 which the KJV translates as, "Saul reigned one year."
But the other versions read quite differently. The NASV has, "Saul
was forty years old when he began to reign;" the NIV has, "Saul was
thirty years old when he became king;" and the RSV and ESV has,
"Saul was … years old when he began to reign." Which of the above is
correct? The only way whereby we can ascertain the correct reading
is to go to the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible since day one reads
Ben-shanah Shaoul, literally, "A son of a year (was) Saul," or
idiomatically, "Saul was a year old."
Now, the difficulty is: How could Saul be only a
year old when he began to reign? Scholars and translators who do not
believe in the jot-and-tittle preservation of Scripture say that
this is an actual discrepancy in the Hebrew Text which they
attribute to a "scribal error." This is why Michael Harding wrote,
"[I]n 1 Samuel 13:1-2 the Masoretic Text states that Saul was one
year of age (ben-shanah—literally "son of a year") … Some ancient
Greek manuscripts [ie, translations or versions]… read "thirty
years" instead of "one year," … I believe the original Hebrew text
also reads "thirty," even though we do not currently possess a
Hebrew manuscript with that reading." (God’s Word in Our Hands,
pp360-361).
Harding and those like him who deny that God has
preserved every jot and tittle of His inspired words (Matt 5:18)
conclude that a word is lost and 1 Samuel 13:1 contains a "scribal
error" even when there is no such error to begin with. Instead of
attributing error to the translation (NASV, NIV, RSV, ESV), they
rather fault the inspired and preserved Hebrew Text and treat it as
an actual discrepancy even when there is absolutely none. This has
caused many Bible believers to doubt God’s Word: Do we really have
God’s infallible and inerrant Word in our hands? Many are indeed
stumbled by such allegations of error in the Bible, and are
questioning whether they can really trust the Scriptures at all if
there is no such thing as a complete and perfect Word of God today.
It must be categorically stated that there is no
error at all in the Hebrew Text and no mistake also in the KJV which
translated 1 Samuel 13:1 accurately. So how do we explain 1 Samuel
13:1? A faithful explanation is offered by Matthew Poole who wrote,
"[Saul] had now reigned one year, from his first election at Mizpeh,
in which time these things were done, which are recorded in chap. xi.,
xii., to wit, peaceably, or righteously. Compare 2 Sam. ii.10."
In other words, the year of Saul was calculated
not from the time of his birth but from his appointment as king;
"Saul was a year old into his reign." This meaning is supported by
the Geneva Bible which reads, "Saul now had beene King one yeere."
Rest assured, there is no mistake in the Hebrew Text and in the KJV
here. God has indeed inspired and preserved His OT words perfectly
so that we might have an infallible, inerrant OT Bible in our hands
today.
Nebuchadnezzar or Nebuchadrezzar?
These two names—Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzar—are
found in Jeremiah 29 verse 3 and verse 21 respectively to refer to
the same king. Bible and Truth deniers who do not believe in VPI
and/or VPP are quick to conclude that the Bible here is in error;
they call it a spelling or a scribal error.
But we who believe in the present perfection and
absolute authority of the Scriptures have always believed and
defended the total inerrancy of Scripture, its VPI and VPP, based on
the logic of faith. So, how do we explain the two spellings, one
with an "n" and the other with an "r." It is really a simple
solution requiring childlike faith on God’s pure and perfect words
(Matt 4:4, Rom 3:4, Heb 11:3, 6). The Bible being historically true
and accurate would have us know that there were two ways of spelling
the name of the Babylonian king. He could either be called
Nebuchadnezzar or Nebuchadrezzar. It is significant to note that the
switch from "r" to "n" is "not uncommon" in Semitic languages (eg,
Benhadad and Barhadad). "Nebuchadnezzar" then, would be the Hebrew
spelling, and "Nebuchadrezzar" the Aramaic spelling (re:
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, sv, "Nebuchadnezzar,
Nebuchadrezzar"). A modern-day example would be Singapore (English)
and Singapura (Malay)—both are correct spellings (not scribal
errors) and refer to the same country.
Big Fish or Whale?
There are those who fault KJV for calling the
"fish" that swallowed Jonah a "whale" for a whale they say is no
fish but mammal. Were the translators mistaken and not intelligent
enough to know that a fish is no mammal?
We do not believe there is any translation
mistake here. The technical or specific word for "fish" in the Greek
is ichthus. But here in Matthew 12:40, the Greek word is not ichthus
but ketos (the equivalent to the Hebrew haddag) which can mean
either "a large fish" or "a huge sea creature." A whale though a
mammal and not technically a "fish" (ichthus) is nevertheless a sea
creature and falls within the generic usage of ketos. Spiros
Zodhiates commented, "Jon 1:17 tells us that God prepared a great
fish. He, who can do anything, could have made the fish capable of
swallowing Jonah, preserving him in its belly and then casting him
out again alive. God does not need to be assisted by natural
possibilities to perform a miracle. This term was in that day, as it
is today, common parlance for any kind of aquatic creature. Its
non-technical usage would allow for a mammal such as a whale and
would therefore contain no error." (The Complete Word Study
Dictionary: New Testament, sv "ketos."). So, it is a misconception
to think that the word ketos cannot refer to a sea mammal like the
whale. It is important to know that the word ketos is a general word
for any kind of creature that lives in the sea, whether fish, shark,
dolphin, or whale. The context determines how the word is to be
used, and the translation of ketos as "whale" in the KJV is entirely
valid and accurate. Hence, no error in the Greek, and no error in
the English translation, no error in God’s miraculous work, and no
error in God’s infallible Word.
We at True Life and FEBC affirm
God’s forever infallible and inerrant, 100% inspired and 100%
preserved words. There are no mistakes in the Bible!
|
