Resolving Contradictions in the Bible

 

By Benjie C. Casido

 

On this page:

Contradictions?

1.  Understanding "Problems" (a) Reading into the Text (b) Inaccurate Reading (c) Incomplete Reading Noah Enoch (d) Trying the Things that Differ

2.  Translation Problems (a) Punctuation (b) Thou Shalt not Kill (c) Saul (d) Age/Word (e) Same Word - Different Translation

3.  Transmission Problems

Conclusion

 

(Note: All Bible quotes are taken from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.)  

Some suppose that our Holy Bible cannot be relied upon because of  the  inconsistencies it contains. They can easily cite some discrepancies being scattered in the pages of our Holy Bible. Some Christians think that the accusers have an axe to grind, consider it as a sacrilege, then dismiss it without due process and further scrutiny.  

 

Contradictions?

 

Nonetheless, those who maintain that there are contradictions among the biblical passages can tabulate many of them. For instance:

 

a. Compare 2 Samuel 24:13 with 1 Chronicles 21:11-12

 

According to 2 Samuel one of the options Jehovah had given to David through Gad was "seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land" (7 years). However, according to 1 Chronicles, one of the options was "three years' famine" (3 years). Here is a difference of four years that essentially presents a contradiction.

 

b. Compare 2 Chronicles 36:9 with 2 Kings 24:8

 

The chronicler recorded that "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem". While in the 2 Kings record "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and reign in Jerusalem three months". Of course, eight and eighteen is no tolerable difference.

 

c. Compare 1 Kings 4:26 with 2 Chronicles 9:25

 

The former records "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots and twelve thousand horsemen". The latter accounted "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, twelve thousand horsemen". Obviously, honest English readers will have a real problem about this discrepancy.

 

d. Compare Matthew 21:7 with Mark 11:7

 

Matthew accounted that Christ's two disciples "brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they sat Him there", while Mark accounted that the two disciples "brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him". Undoubtedly, these two accounts have apparent discrepancy for the former records of two (the ass and the colt), while the latter records of only the colt.

 

e. Compare Matthew 26:7 with John 12:3

 

Matthew's account traces that a certain woman came unto Jesus with a "precious ointment, and poured it on His head, as he sat at meat." On the other hand, John identified the woman as Mary and proclaimed that she "anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair." The argument is clear, the head of Jesus is not His feet.  

These and many other apparent contradictions that are scattered in the pages of our Bible are, without efforts, being cited by those who criticise the Christian faith to destroy our confidence.

But what do we really believe concerning this matter?  We believe that the Holy Bible is the WORD OF GOD. And its original writing is inerrant; thus it cannot contain any error or contradiction of passages or doctrines. Any seeming contradiction of passages or doctrines are but human interpolation.  

Moreover, we believe that all our doctrines and practices should be based on the Holy Bible as the final authority. Therefore, we feel that it is our fundamental duty to defend the veracity of the Holy Bible and resolve any seeming contradiction.

In our endeavour to resolve the difficult passages or contradictions in the Holy Bible we come up with three distinct but equally important aspects by which errors have crept into the mainstream of Christian dogmas, viz., understanding, translation, and transmission.

 

2. Understanding Problems

 

Firstly, we identify doctrinal errors under the heading of understanding. It is our humble confession that we found errors in the mainstream of Christian doctrines which are actually due to misunderstanding certain passages in the Holy Bible.  

We call errors under this heading  "Understanding Errors". This refers to the traditional thought, doctrines or  interpretation that cannot actually be supported with the correct interpretation of the biblical passages used to support it. Some are due to wrong interpretation, others are due to a wrong treatment of similar accounts as identical. Others still are dispensational problems. And many are results from ignorant neglect of the science of correct interpretation, and the preference of tradition rather than pure biblical doctrines.

 

(a) Reading Into the Text

 

Some read into the Bible what is actually not there. I call this "importation of traditional teachings". For example, tradition teaches that Adam and Eve ate an apple in the garden of Eden. But as we examine the biblical records, we cannot find an apple but a "fruit” of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17; 3:6). We are not actually told what is its real identification by name. But tradition imported an "apple" to the passage, thus committing an error.  

Another example is the common belief that the infant Jesus was visited by the three Kings from the East. Here is a demonstration of tradition being believed by the popular society which is actually unscriptural. First, we point out that these were not kings who visited Jesus, but Magi or Wise Men (Matt 2:1).  The idea of "kings" is far more unscriptural; it is rather traditional. As well, tradition has gone further by assigning names to the supposed three kings - Baltazzar, Gaspar, and  Melchur. This again is an illustration of reading into the passage what is not there. And many of its proponents just blindly follow in full agreement of this unverified interpolation. As to how many Magi had visited the infant Jesus, we are not actually told. There is an unspecified number of the wise men. We are only certain that there were more than one. They could be two, three, four or more. The idea that there were three originates from a misunderstanding of the gifts they brought. But we are only told the kind of gifts they brought, rather than who brought what. One could bring gold and myrrh, or one could bring the three kinds.

 

(b) Inaccurate Reading

 

It  is commonly believed and taught that Elijah was carried into the heavens with a chariot of fire pulled by horses of fire. But that's pure and simple tradition! The Bible's teaching is found in 2 Kings 2:9-11 (cp. with 2:1). Verse 11 says, "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind". Now then, what carried Elijah into the heavens? It was a whirlwind. 

(c) Incomplete Reading

 

A text is a part of a larger context. And it is blind ignorance not to take notice of the whole story, picture or idea in which a text is found.

 

Noah

 

For instance, how many sheep got  into Noah's Ark? A majority of the respondents answer "two - a male and a female". When asked where they learned it from, they cite the Scripture as their source. But when we open the Bible we are told that God's command is "of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female" and of "the beast that are not clean by two, the male and his female" (Genesis 7:2).  

The  sheep is declared as a clean beast, thus by sevens. But where did tradition base its teaching of only two? Of course it is based on a biblical passage and that is Genesis 6:19 - "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee, they shall be male and female."

It seems that there is a contradiction between these two passages. But we endorse to all lovers of truth and maintain that God's Word never contradicts itself, and that the problem involved here is one of failure to understand the passage accurately.  

Genesis 6:19 does not contain any slight error therein. Correct understanding will lead us to right interpretation. The key is "they shall be male and female". It is correct that the command of "two of every sort" is the “male and his female". Or in simple language "by pairs". But of how many pairs we are only told in the next chapter. Genesis 7:2-3 provides the answer of how many pairs. "Of every clean beast ... by sevens ... and of beasts that are not clean by two ...". Remove the traditional belief, let the Scripture explain itself, and the contradiction vanishes.

Another example of this failure is in the case of how long Noah and his family stayed in the ark. Some tell us that it was 40 days and 40 nights. Others offer an alternative number of days with no certainty. This difficulty is the result of mistaking a part of the picture, story or idea to be the whole. This difficulty can be erased when we take all the pieces of the question, "how long did Noah and his family stay in the ark?" Let's take Genesis 7:11,13 - "In the sixth hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened... In the self same day entered Noah, and Shem and Ham...(etc)"  

This provides us with part of the whole story; 600th year, 2nd month, on the 17th day, Noah and his family entered into the ark. The next point to complete the equation is the date of Noah's life when they got out from the ark. Genesis 8:13-18 provides it: "And it came to pass in the sixth hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. And in the second month, in the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. And God spake unto Noah, saying "Go forth of the ark, thou and thy wife, thy sons and thy sons' wives with thee… And Noah went forth". This gives us the exact date when they got out from the ark, i.e. 601st year, 2nd month on the 27th day.

Now let's join the pieces together to get the whole picture:  

Year  Month  Day

601    2    27 - Noah and his family went forth

600    2    17 - Noah and his family entered

    ----------------

001    0    10 - Days in the ark

The total days of Noah and his family in the ark: 1 year and 10 days. There is accuracy!

 

Enoch not found

 

Did Enoch die? "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found” Hebrews 11.5.  

It is of common consent that Enoch did not die. However, I humbly disagree with this common belief, with due respect to God's power to do things we cannot explain in plain reason. Moreover, it is not a disbelief of certain passages such as Hebrews 11:5, but a feeling of responsibility to re-examine the most common view due credit to some apparent contradictions and inconsistencies we have spied with other passages and doctrines in the Bible.

The first difficulty that struck my heart is the latter confession of the writer of the Hebrews in verse 13 of the same chapter that declares, "These all died in faith..." The next difficulty was the startling inconsistency between the common belief that Enoch did not die with that of Hebrews 9.27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”. Compare this text with that of Romans 5.12 - "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned".  

To those who object that the latter passage refers only to the spiritual death of Adam, and that Adam and Eve did not experience immediate physical death after committing  the sin, we may answer them with a question: If their supposition is true, then what is the cause of physical death, when did it start, and why?

To those who want to play on exceptions as to "all will eventually die" arming themselves with that of those who will not experience physical death at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, we appeal to their senses that we will not deny that in every rule there is almost always an exception, and further maintain that those who will remain at the coming of the Lord  will not taste death (1 Thess. 4.16-17). Nonetheless, it is always our rule in biblical hermeneutics that we will only endorse exception where the Bible endorses exception. In this case therefore, we cannot further include Enoch to those who will not die because Enoch lived and died long before the exception will take place, that is, at the coming of our Lord.  

Furthermore, if Enoch was changed from mortal body to immortality (for neither blood nor flesh can enter into the kingdom of God), then he can no longer be touched by death. And if, as some suppose, Enoch will be one of the witnesses in Revelation chapter 11, then he is still in his mortal body for the two witnesses were killed by the beast that ascend out of the bottomless pit (Rev 11.7). So then, there is always inconsistent claim by our dear friends which should be corrected, if they want to have a clear teaching.

 

Where is Enoch Now?

 

If Enoch is alive unto this day then where is he now? Many suppose that he is enjoying sweet fellowship with God in heaven or in paradise. This, too, is questionable. It nullifies the hope of resurrection for it supposes that there is life and fellowship in heaven with man and God without resurrection. Moreover, if we will insist on believing that Enoch is now in heaven, then Enoch had to have ascended to heaven, for how could he be in heaven without ascending first to heaven? Believing this assumption, however, will render John 3:13 of being a false declaration which tells us that "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man..." Of no doubt, David was a righteous and great man of God, but it is a clear testimony of the Scripture that "David is not ascended into the heavens" (Acts 2.34).  

It is then my humble conclusion that out of consistent examination of the basic teaching in the Scripture, Enoch did not taste death in one particular danger of his life (as the testimony  of Hebrews 11:5) but later on died as the testimony of Hebrews 11:13 and the general teachings of the Bible.

But on what does tradition base its belief that Enoch did not die? It is derived from Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death".  

We may then ask a question: What does “translated” mean? Common opinion at this time is immaterial due to its variety. We will try to dig deeper. The word "translated" is a translation of the Greek word metatitheme. According to Dr. E.W. Bullinger in his Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the N.T., metatitheme means to put or place in another place, to transport. And Dr. Strong in his Exhaustive Concordance gives the same basic idea:  metatitheme lit. means transport. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Baur, translated by Arndt and Gingrich testifies the same: convey to another place, put in other place, transfer. Dr. E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary gives the same testimony: to transfer to another place. Moreover, the same Greek word metatitheme, is used in Acts 7.16 and is rightly translated "carried over".

So then, we refer back to our previous declaration that Enoch was translated, transported, carried over from one place to another that he should not see death at that particular danger, but, as the general teaching of the Scripture, he must have  died after in his life which totalled to 365 years.  

Now let's examine another important  evidence of Enoch's death. "All the days of Enoch were 365 years". If he is alive yet; if he never died, 365 years falls short of expressing all the days of Enoch's life. "All the days of Enoch" is a phrase which  indicates limitation of days. Three  hundred and sixty five years states "all the days" Enoch lived.

One more thing is the examination of the phrase "and he was not". “And he died” was said of all who were named from Adam, Enoch excepted. For him rather a different phrase was used: "and he was not". But what does this phrase really mean? Some people understand it to mean he was no longer on earth; that he was translated to heaven. This view our Lord flatly denies (John 3.13). In Lamentations 5.7 we have this statement: "Our fathers have sinned, and are not". Whatever happened to Enoch when he was not, happened to our fathers when they are not. Therefore, if the words, "and  he was not" mean that Enoch was immortalized, so were they; if he was translated to the heavens, so were they!! But that was not the case, "our  fathers have sinned, and are not", must mean our fathers sinned and have died. Indeed, it is affirmed that they did not live forever, but that they died. (Zec. 1.5; John 8.52; Heb.11.13).  

Accordingly, the occurrence of this statement in the book of Genesis clearly endorses our findings; for it must be  admitted that a writer has the right to interpret his own writing. Every time  Moses used this expression, he meant death every time. In Genesis 42.36, Jacob in great sorrow thinking that Joseph was without doubt dead he said "Me ye have bereaved of my children; Joseph is not,  and Simeon is not, and ye will take  Benjamin away". That Jacob means Joseph was dead is positively stated  in Genesis 42.38: "My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead". Reuben, like his father, expressed it in Genesis 37.30 - the child is not.  

It is therefore my humble contention that the Bible cannot and will not contradict itself. Thus, as it is said "death passed upon all men, and as it is appointed unto men once to die"  it means what it says. And when it, after naming the heroes of faith including Enoch says "all these died" and in other passages declares "all the days of Enoch was 365 years" and that he was not - he died - we humbly submit with faith to the Word. And when it says that "no man hath ascended up to the heaven" we bow down and with all the reasons to believe we say "Amen".

 

(d) Trying The Things That Differ

 

In addition, I may point out that some problems are caused by the failure to distinguish the things that differ because of confusing one dispensational truth with that which belongs to another dispensation. Failure to separate truth applicable only to one dispensation from other truths which are exclusive also for other dispensations is a fruitful cause of  misconception and confusion. Not knowing the dispensational thrust of the Bible closes the door to right interpretation and results in misunderstanding which, in effect, produces an honestly categorised but scripturally wrong doctrine.

Let's see for instance:

 

Circumcision

You must be circumcised. If you are not circumcised, you are cut off from God's people (see Gen. 17.9-14). You must not practice circumcision. If you practice circumcision, Christ will be of no profit to you (see Gal. 5.2).

 

An Unbelieving Mate

If  your wife is an unbeliever, you must separate from  her (see Ezra 10.2-12). If  your wife is an unbeliever, do not separate from her (see 1 Cor. 7.12-14).

 

Eating Pork

Pork is unclean and must not be eaten (see Lev. 11.7-8). Pork  is not necessarily unclean and may be eaten (see 1 Tim. 4.4,5).

 

The Sabbath

The Sabbath must be observed (see Exo. 20.8). The Sabbath need not be observed (see Gal. 4.9-11; Col. 2.16).

 

Ordinances

We are under ordinances that we must obey (see Lev. 18.1-4; Num. 9.14). We are not under ordinances. They have been abolished (see Eph.2.15; Col. 2.14).  

Once  again, I humbly endorse to you my dear brothers and sisters in the Body, this humble confession that every passage in the Bible has a dispensational context that needs to be considered if we desire a pure truth applicable to this present dispensation. This does not, however, deny that there are many doctrines in the Bible which transverse from dispensation to dispensation (for example, God is love, a fact which is true to every dispensation). I am only talking of those that are exclusive to a specific dispensation which, when imported to other dispensations, will create contradictions as we have previously cited.

This then is our endorsement: if there is seeming discrepancy that will cross your way to right interpretation, check your understanding. If you already have checked your understanding and the problem still persists, the topic of problems in Translation might prove helpful.

 

2. Translation Problems

 

Translation problems refer to the problems of translating the original languages used in the Bible to English and other dialects, like Cebuano (the Philippino dialect of the author) by which errors have crept into the script due to several reasons.  

From the outset, we shall not fail to re-iterate that most, if not all, theologians agree that the so-called Old Testament books were originally written in Hebrew and partly Aramaic, while the New Testament books were written originally in Greek (Koine Greek). As we take, for instance, the most popularly known Authorised Version or the King James Version of 1611, it is actually a direct translation of the manuscript known as the Textus Receptus or the Received Text.

In the process of translation from the original languages to that of English and/or other dialects, errors have crept into the text in a few instances. These are somewhat unintentional, but equally tragic. Sometimes the translators committed an error of translation to let the text fit their private theology. Sometimes tradition and the then rampant philosophies and confessions blinded the translators, hence committing an error. Some are products of the problem of translating the richer language to a less  rich language like Hebrew and Greek to  English, or from English to Cebuano.

 

(a) Punctuation

 

In a few cases, punctuation is misplaced which in effect alter the real sense of the passage. The original languages used in the writing of the books in the Bible, in their primitive structure, have no punctuation marks. For example, let us examine Luke 23.43, "And Jesus said unto  him, `Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise". From this declaration of Jesus Christ, it appears on the surface that at that time, the malefactor went with Christ in paradise and lives unto this day in paradise. But from other passages of the Scripture it is very clear that paradise is yet to be established in the future and those who are asleep in Christ are still waiting for their resurrection, which, thus, creates a difficulty. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ did not go to paradise at that day but went to Hades and stayed in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. Where was the malefactor then?  If at that day the malefactor went to paradise, then he needed not to wait for the resurrection to enjoy the hope of paradise. And if there will be no resurrection, as some supposed in Corinth, then the malefactor is blessed enough not to be numbered with those Corinthians who may have believed that “they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished" (1 Cor. 15. 12-19).  

Once again I humbly endorse to your most blessed  heart a rediscovery of the real sense of the passage by just relocating the misplaced comma to its proper place. Thus, Luke 23.43 should read, "And Jesus said unto him, `Verily I say unto thee  today [comma], thou shalt be with me in paradise'". This is not an attempt to alter some passages in the Scripture to fit to our theology but a simple submission to a recognition of the fact that the phrase "I  say unto thee today" is a Hebraism or a Hebrew idiom which can be reinforced by comparing it with Deut.  4.26,39,40;  5.1; 6.6; 7.11; Joshua 23.14, etc.

Again I have done my part and the next step is yours. I would hasten to add that I am not a dictator of conscience; I am just a minister of the Word. 

 

(b) Thou Shalt Not Kill

 

Now we will demonstrate the afore-mentioned translation errors. Open your Bible to Exodus 20.13, "Thou shalt not kill" is the content.  

If we will just close the Bible after reading and expose the meaning of the passage based on what we think it means, there will be no problem. But we cannot go very far before we meet a difficulty. Exodus 21.12, 15 and 16 present a totally different picture which, upon properly understanding, it would be a provision to  kill someone, which is a flat denial of the  previous verse. Let’s look unto the text and see for ourselves.

12  "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

15 "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be put to death."

16 "And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."  

"Shall be put to death". That is not the same as "thou shalt not kill", but a contradiction. By the help of the Hebrew  Interlinear, we  have discovered that the  Hebrew word translated "kill" in Exodus 20.13 is ratsach. And according to the Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs, "ratsach means to murder, slay from an Aramaic word which means to break, bruise - murder, slay with premeditation”. Dr. James Strong in the Hebrew Dictionary found in his Exhaustive Concordance, defines the word ratsach as "to dash in pieces, i.e., kill (a human being), espc. to murder”. The word “murder” struck to mind as it is the word that is used by the translators of  the New International Version or NIV and many other modern translations. What is basically the difference of kill and murder? Upon consulting the Merriam-Webster Dictionary we find a very substantial difference between them which  is essential to our discovery. "Kill is a mere deprivation of life while murder is a crime of unlawfully killing a person esp.  with malice aforethought.”

We then come to a conclusion that the correct translation of the Hebrew word ratsach is “murder” as favoured by the most  modern translations. Hence, “thou shalt not murder” (Exodus 20.13) is the correct rendering which will eradicate the little confusion between it and Exodus 21.12, 15 and 16, which are provisions for the lawful taking of one’s life.

 

(c) Saul

 

Now turn to 1 Samuel 28.6. It says, "And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not..." We know from this  verse that Saul enquired of the Lord. But turning to the account of 1 Chronicles 10 we see a different declaration. It says in verses 13 and 14, "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against  the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; and enquired not of the Lord:..."  From this record we are certain that Saul enquired not of the  Lord", which is a flat denial to the previous text which tells us that Saul enquired of the Lord".  

This is another error of translation for upon looking into the Hebrew Interlinear we discover that the original word  translated “enquire” in these texts are not the same, but two different words. The Hebrew word used in 1 Samuel 28.6 is sha'al which is translated "enquire". In 1 Chronicles 10.14 the Hebrew word used is darash which is also translated "enquire".

Dr. E.W. Bullinger in the Companion Bible noted this discrepancy. In his note on 1 Chronicles 10.14, he writes:  to  enquire  - to seek and consult. Hebrew darash, to  seek earnestly. Saul sought thus with the medium, but not with Jehovah. Accordingly, his note on 1 Samuel 28.6 is: enquire - asked. Heb. sha'al, to ask. Not darash, `to seek out'. In the Hebrew Dictionary of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Dr. James Strong appears to give distinction between these two words, darash being  intensive as to enquire diligently or make an inquisition, while sha'al has an idea of merely asking but not to seek out the matter. The Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver & Briggs supported to it as it affirms to our point that sha'al  means ask, enquire, petition while darash means to resort to, seek out; an equivalent to an Aramaic which means rub over, discuss, search out. With this information, therefore, we conclude that Saul did sha'al (enquire) to the Lord but he did not darash (seek earnestly) to the Lord. When these two different words in the Hebrew will be kept distinct in our translations then the contradiction vanishes.  

 

(d) Age / World

 

Now we will turn to Hebrews 1.2 with a microscopic look to the word "worlds". The Greek word for this is aionas, a  plural form of aion. The  KJV translates the word aion into English with a word “world” in many or most instances, by which the NIV changed it to the English word “age”, which is a better translation.  For instance, see Matt. 12.32; 13.39,40,49, and many more.

However, the NIV has committed a translation error in handling the aion in Hebrews 1.2 wherein it translates it “universe” which is an inconsistent and poor rendering. We do not see any valid reason in so doing, and conclude that it must come only from a personal opinion of the translators.

Dr. E.W. Bullinger has a note on the word aion in his Critical Lexicon and I quote: “aion ...  the  space of human life, an age or  generation  in respect of duration...The time lived or to be lived by  men, time as moving, historical time as well as eternity...”. 

 

(e) Same Word - Different Translation

 

Another problem of translation involves altering translation from one place to another when there's no warrant to alter. Example: the one Greek word diatheke which is found in two passages viz.,  Hebrews 7.22 and 8.6. The former  translates diatheke  into “testament” while the later translates it to “covenant”. Conversely sometimes, a problem of translating two different Hebrew or Greek words into one English word occurs. For instance, the aforementioned problem of translating the word darash and sha'al into one English word enquire. Another example is the word “hell” in the New  Testament which is actually a translation  of two different Greek words: hades and gehenna. For accuracy, we demand a credible justification of this enigmatic rendering. For if the common belief that hell is the lake of fire is true, then much  trouble is introduced, because in  Revelation 20.14 hades (hell) is thrown to the lake of fire (hell). Hell seems to be thrown to itself!!!  Ref. for hell (hades): Mat. 11.23; 16.18; Luke  10.15, etc. and ref. for hell (gehenna): Mat. 5.22; 29.30; 10.28;  18.9, etc.

So then, when we face contradictory passages, translation is one of the aspects to be considered by comparing it to the  best available manuscript or the different available versions.

 

3. Transmission Problems

 

Transmission problems refer to the errors which occur in  the process of copying a text; that is, from Hebrew to Hebrew or  from Greek to Greek. With the absence of the printing press, handwriting was used  to copy a text to produce the text in the  same language. By copying they intended to preserve the original text so that they could hand down a text which would be the same as the original.  

Charles Welch has a good comment on this when he writes:

“Before the invention of printing, every  book, of necessity, was written by hand. This manuscript work, however faithfully undertaken, becomes, in time, partly  automatic, and slight errors are bound to occur. When we remember that, in some cases, the scribe was a poor, badly  educated believer, making his copy in secret, under the shadow of possible  apprehension and martyrdom, we can understand  how the possibilities of error to transcription were multiplied. Yet, if the reader will but think for the moment,  none of these errors need prevent him from understanding what was the original text. Suppose this present article were  given to twenty different persons, of all grades of education  and appreciation  of the subject matter to copy. It is possible that one copy would be absolutely free from some errors, a careful examination of them all would enable any judicious reader to discover the original text, for it's certain that where, say, five would make the same mistake, the other fifteen would correct it.” (from “The Volume of the Book”, Berean Publishing Trust, pp. 37-38).  

Today, we can no longer find the original manuscripts. Nevertheless, there are Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available  which were used in the translation to produce an English Bible. These various manuscripts differ in some respects that reflect in different versions. These various manuscripts were products of the believers  who made copies of the text for  themselves. In the process however, two probable types of transmission errors could have, and did, occur.

Transmission errors might be by omission or insertion (addition).  

To demonstrate our point we will use the New International Version (NIV) as our model. But before giving some illustration, I will quote part of the preface of the NIV concerning the manuscript used by the translators.

"...for the Old Testament, The Standard  Hebrew Text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest editions of Biblia Hebraica, was used throughout. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain material bearing on an earlier stage of the Hebrew  text. They  were consulted, as were the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions relating to textual changes. Sometimes as a variant Hebrew reading in the margin of  the Masoretic Text was followed instead of the text itself. Such instances, being variants within the  Masoretic tradition, are not specified by footnotes. In rare cases, words in the consonantal text were divided differently from the way they appear in the Masoretic Text. Footnotes indicate this. The translators also consulted the more important early versions -  the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus  and Theodotion;  the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums;  and for the Psalms the  uxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of Textual Criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to  provide correct reading. Such instances are footnoted. Sometimes, vowel signs did not, in the judgment of the  translators, present the correct vowels for the original consonant text. Accordingly some words  were read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated by footnotes.”  

“The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as  does the New Testament. Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choice of readings according to  accepted principles of the New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where there was uncertainty  about what the original text was. The best current printed texts of the Greek New Testament were used."

Obviously, the NIV translators had consulted more than one manuscript by which alternative renderings are employed. This is the  process of recovering the original text. It recognises the problem of transmission errors.  Earlier, I noted two major types of transmission errors, viz., an omission and an insertion. "Often it is the result of two lines of the manuscript ending with the same word. The eye of copyist falls upon the second line instead of the first so that the whole line is omitted; or the process may be reversed, and the whole line repeated." (from “The Volume of the Book” by Charles Welch).  

These can be mechanical, mental or intentional. Mechanical, like the aforementioned, is easily corrected by comparison with other manuscripts. Mental and intentional alterations are by far very serious and more difficult to deal. Mental alterations occur when something goes on in the copyist's mind which we cannot know, and in a momentary lapse a wrong word is inserted. A very common form of this error is the alteration of the passage to one that is remembered in another part of the book. For example, the words of Luke 6.48 in the A.V. are identical with those of the parallel passage  in Mat. 7.25, "For it was founded upon a rock". Some authorities suppose that the Revisers were correct in their reading it as “because it had been well builded". It is supposed that the manuscript that had Luke and Matthew agree, was written by a scribe whose mind retained the earlier reading, although his eye read what the R.V. has in the text. (Welch, op. cit.)

Sometimes in the process of copying, parts were left out, were later noticed and added in the upper space or in the margin; but later on another copyist omitted that section, thinking that it was not actually part of the original text. Conversely sometimes, some put their personal opinion as a note in the margin, which was then copied by the copyist thinking, that it was part of the original text.  

Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are scattered all over the world in libraries, private collections and museums - these have all or nearly all, been examined. The fact that copies of the scriptures were  multiplied all over the earth, and were  connected with differing schools of thought, provided an effective check in nearly all cases. (Ibid.)

For illustration, look at 1 John 3.1: "and that is what we are” is absent from the KJV, but is recovered in the NIV. On the other hand, 1 John 5.7-9 in most manuscripts says: “for there are three that testify”. The KJV rendering has more words, showing that the manuscript from which it was translated had extra words, beginning from "in heaven" to "in earth".

Additional examples:

John 3.13 - "which is in heaven" is added.

John 5.4 - the whole verse was added.

Mark 7.16; 9.44, and many more are not found in the NIV and some other versions.

 

In Summary

 

Here, then, are at least three areas which we need to be aware of, and address, in our reading and interpretation of the Bible.  

1. “Understanding” Problems - any seeming contradiction of passages or doctrines are of human origin.

(a) Take care not to read into the text that which is not there. (b) Take care to read the text accurately.   (c) Be sure to read all that is said.      (d) Observe dispensational differences.  

2. Be aware of problems arising out of an inadequate translation of the text in the original language.  

3. Be aware of problems arising out of missing or added verses from the transmission of the text through time.  

*

We are then satisfied to point out the way to better understand and appreciate the Word, and have opened up the door, but we urge you to enter through it by yourself. God bless you and search the scriptures, like the Bereans in Acts 17.11, to see whether  these things are so.

 

References

 

Books

 

Bauer,  Walter, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature , trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 2nd. Ed., Rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1979  

Bullinger,  E.  W., A Critical Lexicon and a Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, Zondervan  Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1975.

Companion Bible, The, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, 1990  

Gesenius, William, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. Edward Robinson, edit. Francis  Brown,  D.D., D.L.H.,  S.R. Driver, D.D., Litt.D, and Charles A.  Briggs, D.D., D. Litt., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1980 

Hebrew-English Lexicon, Samuel Bagster and Sons  Ltd.,  London, 1974   Holy Bible, American Standard Version, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., Brooklyn, 1929  

Huggins,  Robert G., The Bible, Its Principles and Texts, Ohio, 1973

New International Version of the Holy Bible, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1986  

Strong, James, S.T.D., L. L. D.,

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Compact ed., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1982

Tavender, David, Understanding the Bible For Yourself, The Berean Bible Fellowship of Australia, Inc., P.O. Box 3141, Glendale 2285, NSW, Australia. 1993  

Vine, W.E., Vine's Amplified Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Ref. ed., World Publishing, Grand Rapids, 1991

Welch, Charles  H., The Volume of the  Book,  Berean  Publishing Trust, London  

Wigram, George V., The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the  New Testament, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1982

Young,  Robert,  LL.D., Young's Analytical  Concordance  to the Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1982

 

Audio Cassette Tape

Lynn,  John  A., John W. Shoenheit, and Mark  H.  Greaser,  Truth Versus Tradition, Christian Educational Services, Inc.,  (8 tape set), Indianapolis, 1995

This site is produced by the Berean Bible Fellowship of Australia (BBFA)
Contact our web administrator at webmaster@spiritualblessings.org

| Privacy | | About | | Articles | | Books | | Top | | Magazine | | Meetings | | Donate | | Contact | | Links |