Category Archives: Difficult Bible Passages

Difficult Bible Passages

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 4

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In part 3 of this series, we started to compare New World slavery to Old Testament (OT) slavery and we found that there were radical differences.  Let’s continue with the comparison.

The third characteristic of New World slavery has to do with the treatment of slaves.  From part 2 of the series, we know that “the treatment of slaves was harsh by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.”

What about OT slavery?  According to the Christian Thinktank, “The Law forbade harsh treatment, set stipulations for positive treatment, and set tight boundaries around punishment/abuse of servants.”

This difference is fleshed out in multiple ways by the Thinktank:

  1. “There are several general admonitions in the Law against harsh/abusive/oppressive behavior toward Hebrew servants” – see Lev. 25:43; Lev. 25:46; Lev. 25:53; Deut. 15:18.
  2. “In fact, the Law assumes that the situation may be lucrative enough for some servants to decide to stay with their masters for their lifetime” – see Ex. 21:5; Deut. 15:16
  3. “The general scholarly assessment is that this domestic ‘slavery’ was not very atrocious, went way beyond ‘property only’, and instead created family-like bonds.”
    1. Here is an example quoted from the book The Israelites : “However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household–there is no indication, for example, that large gangs of them were toiling in deplorable conditions to cultivate big estates, as in the later Roman world.”
  4. “Interestingly, when a servant was to be released at the Sabbath year (without payment of money!), the master was to send him out with gifts of material possessions!” – see Deut. 15:12-14
  5. “ALL servants were required to take the Sabbath day off–just like the masters. ” – see Ex. 20:9-10; Ex. 23:12; Deut. 5:13-15
  6. “Not only was abusive treatment of servants strictly forbidden, but the Law held masters very accountable!” – see Ex. 21:20; Ex. 21:26-27

The fourth characteristic of New World slavery is legal status.  Recall the following: “Slaves were considered ‘property’ in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners as to how they treated their ‘property’. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.”

What about OT slavery?  According to the Thinktank, “In keeping with the ‘variableness’ of notions of property in the [ancient near east] (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel’s notion of ‘property’ was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability.”

A couple additional points must be made:

  1. Servants were never considered property in the sense of New World slaves.  Accordingly slave “‘property’ is therefore seen not as ‘owned disposable goods’ but as economic output (including labor)” – see Lev. 25:14-16; Ex. 21:18-19; Lev. 25:49-53
  2. Therefore, “as a ‘managed, but not owned’ human resource, servants were NOT thereby rendered ‘disposable, non-human goods’. They were still legal agents in the culture and their masters were legally accountable for how they were treated.”

Finally, the fifth characteristic of New World slavery was the fact of no exit.  “There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a ‘bare bones’ release–no property went with the freedman.”

What about OT slavery? “One of the more amazing things about Hebrew servant-status was how ‘easy’ it was to get free!”  Here are some things to consider from the Thinktank article:

  1. “Freedom could be bought by relatives” – see Lev 25:49
  2. “The servant could buy his own freedom, whether the master WANTED to let him go or not” – see Lev 25:49
  3. “Every 7th year (the Sabbath year), all servants were to automatically go free–without ANY payment of money to the master” – see Ex.21:2; Deut. 15:12
  4. “Minor injuries due to abusive treatment automatically resulted in immediate freedom (this is actually labeled as ‘to compensate’, implying rights/duties/debt)” – see Ex 21:26-27
  5. “When freedom was granted at the Sabbath year or Year of Jubilee, the master was obligated to send them out with liberal gifts–to allow them to occupy the land in sufficiency again” – see Deut 15:13

Wow!  If you’ve read all four posts, you must now understand that Hebrew “slavery” in the OT is absolutely nothing like New World slavery.  God’s primary purpose for this institution was to help the poor in Israel.  It was to provide a safety net for families that had landed on hard times and there were strict rules about how this poverty program was to be executed.  It is simply incorrect to charge that ancient Israel instituted the same kind of slavery that was found in the New World.

Since we’ve followed the Thinktank this far, let’s end this series with the Thinktank summary:

It should be QUITE CLEAR from the above, that the institution in the Mosaic law involving voluntary, fixed-term, flexible, and protected servant-laborer roles was unlike “western”, chattel labor in almost ALL RESPECTS. To label it as ‘slavery’, except in the most general/metaphorical sense of the word, is significantly inappropriate.

Difficult Bible Passages

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 3

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In part 2 of this series, we reviewed 5 characteristics of New World slavery.  Starting in part 3, we will compare the 5 characteristics of New World slavery with Hebrew slavery in the Law (first five books of the Old Testament).

Before we get started, a couple of general comments need to be made.  Since the great majority of passages in the Law are regarding instructions about Hebrew slaves serving other Hebrews, that is the situation we will analyze.  The few passages in the Law concerning foreign slaves will not be addressed (maybe another time).

First, New World “slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.”  What about in the case of Old Testament (OT) slavery?  According to the Christian Thinktank, “The ‘slavery’ of the OT was essentially designed to serve the poor!”  Yes, you read that correctly.  This is a fundamental and profound difference between New World and Hebrew slavery.

Consider this important text from Leviticus 25:35-43 on Hebrew slavery:

‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you.  You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.  I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.  He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.  Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers.  Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.  Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.’

The Thinktank explains, “Notice that the sole motive–in the primary text before us– for allowing ‘slavery’ is so the poor can continue in the land, and that it is NEVER ‘forever’ (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at the most!). This is radically different than an elitest-motive.”

Second, New World entry into “slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.”  What about OT slavery?  “In the OT, this relationship was overwhelmingly voluntary, and forced, non-negotiated . . . enslavement was a capital offense.”

Four specific points need to be made here:

  1. “Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death” – see Ex. 21:16 and Deut. 24:7.
  2. “The vast majority of cases would have been voluntary, with the person himself initiating the transaction” – see Lev. 25:39; Lev. 25:47; Deut. 15:12.
  3. “Although most of these arrangements were limited to six years in length (e.g., Deut. 15:12 above), continuation of this relationship was possible, but ONLY AS a strictly voluntary act of the ‘slave'” – see Ex. 21:5-6; Deut. 15:16-17
  4. “The only clear case of involuntary servitude was in the case of a thief that was too poor to make restitution for good stolen, and here is was strictly an economic measure” – see Ex. 22:3

The next three characteristics of New World slavery will be compared to OT slavery in future posts, but I hope you can already understand that Hebrew “slavery” is radically different from the slavery of the southern United States.

Difficult Bible Passages

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 2

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In part 1 of this series of posts, we introduced the idea that there are many different kinds of slavery.  When most Americans ponder slavery, though, we are thinking of the southern United States before the Civil War.  So what was slavery like in the southern United States?  The Christian Thinktank summarizes several aspects of this type of slavery.

First, “slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.”  The Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology explains, “New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor – producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market.”

According to Britannica: “By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the production of cotton…the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery. Slavery generated profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War Between the States.”

Second, entry into “slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.”  Again Britannica explains:

Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded throughout the Islamic world. Approximately 18,000,000 Africans were delivered into the Islamic trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades between 650 and 1905. In the second half of the 15th century Europeans began to trade along the west coast of Africa, and by 1867 between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 Africans had been shipped as slaves to the New World…. The relationship between African and New World slavery was highly complementary. African slave owners demanded primarily women and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors.

Third, the treatment of slaves was harsh by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.

Fourth, the legal status of New World slaves was generally like the following, according to the Christian Thinktank: “Slaves were considered ‘property’ in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners as to how they treated their ‘property’. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.”

In addition, “Slaves could not have their own property–all they had belonged to their ‘owner’. ”

Fifth, there was generally no exit from slavery.  “There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a ‘bare bones’ release–no property went with the freedman.”

We have summarized five characteristics of New World slavery, so our next step is to compare these characteristics to the characteristics of the slavery found in the Old Testament Law.  We’ll tackle that next.

Difficult Bible Passages

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 1

23 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Someone recently asked me about slavery in the Bible, and I decided it was time to take this topic on.  In order to stay focused, I want to answer a very specific question: does God support the institution of slavery in the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament)?

The Torah, also called the Law, is where God gave Israel detailed instructions about how to conduct their affairs as a nation.   How did slavery fit into the instructions God gave Israel?

Before I begin, I want to explain my source for this material.  I have relied on the Christian Thinktank.  In fact, my posts will be an attempt at compacting and summarizing the 29,000 word article written on this topic on the Thinktank.  If you would like to read the article and skip my summary, please do so, for it is a truly excellent treatment.  For those who want the summary, read on.

The first requisite step is to consider what the word slavery means.  Most of us, when we hear the word slavery, think of the institution that existed in the southern United States before the Civil War brought it to an end.   However, it turns out that the word slavery is a slippery one, for there have been many different kinds of slavery throughout world history.

Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology:

Scholars do not agree on a definition of “slavery.” The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semi-voluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of “slavery” shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term “Slavery” is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films. . . From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features. . . In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom.

What I will do in the next few posts is lay out what New World slavery was like, and then contrast that type of slavery with the kind found in the Torah.  You will discover that there are profound differences, so please come back for the rest of the series.

Difficult Bible Passages, Essential Beliefs, General Apologetics, Inerrancy, New Testament Reliability, Textual Criticism

How Brittle Are Your Christian Beliefs?

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman wrote in his book, Misquoting Jesus, that his Christian beliefs began to fall apart when he realized that there was a mistake, an error, in the Gospel of Mark.  Now, I think that the alleged mistake is not a mistake, but let’s assume for a minute that we just don’t know for sure – maybe Mark made a mistake, and maybe he didn’t.

Is this any reason to jettison your belief in Christianity?  That has not been my reaction when I’ve been faced with many of the same kinds of difficulties in the Bible.  Why does Ehrman feel that he has to give up the whole show when he finds one error?

There are a few Christians who have been upset with me when I’ve talked about the fact that the 5,800 Greek manuscript copies of the New Testament differ from each other so that we are unsure of about 1% of the text in the New Testament.  These verses have nothing to do with any major Christian doctrine, but nonetheless they believe it is unacceptable to have any uncertainty at all.  Their faith is threatened by the science of textual criticism, even when textual criticism is practiced by conservative Christians.

Other Christians claim only the King James Version of the Bible is correct, that all the others are full of significant mistakes.  They feel their faith threatened by the other versions.

What do these people all have in common?  New Testament scholar Darrell Bock referred to these kinds of Christians as brittle fundamentalists.  They are brittle because when one of their cherished beliefs are challenged, their faith either falls apart, like Ehrman, or they retreat deep into isolation so as not to deal with anyone who disagrees with them.

I have a deep concern for the brothers and sisters who hold these beliefs.  They are majoring on the minors of Christianity.  They are making secondary things primary things.  There are certain teachings of the church that have always been recognized as the essentials, the things that form the core of our faith.

Holding on to the essentials, we need to make room for the findings of history, science, and philosophy that help us better understand our faith.  We need to be willing to learn about our faith, and maybe even change some of our secondary beliefs.  If your understanding of a Bible passage has never changed, if your understanding of a secondary doctrine has never changed, you are not growing and your Christianity may be brittle.

I have been studying the tough issues that face Christians for 7 years now, and I have had to modify several of my secondary and non-essential ideas about Christianity.  It can be uncomfortable sometimes, but what has happened to me is that the core beliefs I hold have become stronger and stronger, the more I learn.

I hope the same will happen for you.  We have nothing to fear.  We really don’t.

Difficult Bible Passages, Textual Criticism

Is Mark 16:9-20 the Original Ending to the Gospel of Mark?

37 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

We don’t know.  Scholars divide sharply on this issue, although it seems that the majority of New Testament scholars believe that verses 9-20 were not part of the original Gospel written by Mark.

Why?  Because the two oldest manuscripts containing Mark’s Gospel (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) do not contain these verses, church fathers Eusebius and Jerome both said that these verses were missing from Greek manuscripts they knew of, the style and vocabulary of verses 9-20 are decidedly different from the rest of Mark, and it would make sense for later writers to add to the Gospel because verse 8 seems like an abrupt ending.

On the other hand, most manuscripts from the fifth century on contain the verses and second century church fathers Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Irenaeus quoted verse 19, thus supporting its early existence.

One popular compromise view is presented by John D. Grassmick in The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

A view which seems to account for the relevant evidence and to raise the least number of objections is that (a) Mark purposely ended his Gospel with verse 8 and (b) verses 9-20, though written or compiled by an anonymous Christian writer, are historically authentic and are part of the New Testament canon . . . .

In other words, the early church accepted the tradition represented in Mark 16:9-20 even though many understood that Mark did not write it himself.

Again, we do not have enough data to determine the answer with certainty, so dogmatism is unwarranted.  Whether or not you believe that verses 9-20 were part of the original Gospel, according to Timothy Paul Jones in Misquoting Truth,  should not affect “Christian faith or practice in any significant way” because the concepts found in these verses echo ideas found in other Old and New Testament passages (see Luke 10:19; Isaiah 11:8; Psalm 69:21, 29 for references to protection from snakes and poison).

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Should We Not Read the Bible? Part 6

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Continuing from part 5 of this series, we now turn to the final three mistakes critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  These mistakes are taken from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.

Mistake #15: Forgetting that Only the Original Text, Not Every Copy of Scripture, Is without Error.

Christians readily admit that there are copyist errors in the manuscript copies of the Old and New Testaments (see What is Inerrancy?).  But we also hold that inerrancy only applies to the original words written by the biblical authors.  Finding an error in one of the manuscript copies may or may not trace back to the original writing.  It is only through the science of textual criticism that this investigation can be done (see How Do Textual Critics Choose Among New Testament Manuscript Variants?).

If it can be shown that an original writing contains an alleged error, then the critic must show it is truly an error, that it contradicts well-established facts, something which traditional Christians hold has never been successfully done.

Mistake 16: Confusing General Statements with Universal Ones.

Geisler and Howe explain: “Critics often jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit of no exceptions. They seize upon verses that offer general truths and then point with glee to obvious exceptions. In so doing, they forget that such statements are only intended to be generalizations.”

The Book of Proverbs, for example, contains numerous general statements of wisdom, but these proverbial sayings are not universally true.  Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”  Even though it is generally true, many of us can point to examples of children who, even though they were raised in a strong Christian home, rebel and never straighten out their lives.

Mistake 17: Forgetting that Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation.

In God’s dealings with mankind, as recorded in the Bible, he progressively revealed more and more of himself as history advanced.  God tested mankind in the Garden of Eden with a tree, but this test is no longer in effect.  The commands to sacrifice animals for the forgiveness of sins was in effect for a time, but once Jesus died for mankind’s sins, the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.  Jesus was revealed as the Son of God, but only to the people of his time, and not to those who lived before him.

Some critics point to later revelation and claim that it contradicts earlier revelation, but this accusation cannot be sustained if the “error” in question was a command given for a specific time period.  Again, God has dealt with mankind in many different ways throughout history.  This fact does not prove that errors exist in the Bible.

Conclusion:

All Christians are well advised to memorize the 17 mistakes that critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  Truth be told, Christians sometimes make these same mistakes.  We may not accuse the Bible of error, but we often forget that the books of the Bible were written by human writers, in different literary styles, and with differing perspectives.  These 6 blog posts, therefore, are not just a call for critics to stop improperly maligning the Bible, but a call for Christians to better understand the Word of God that has been handed down to them.

Bible Interpretation, Books of the Bible, Difficult Bible Passages, Salvation, Theology

What Are Romans 9,10, and 11 About?

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I’ve touched on this topic before, but it continues to interest me, so I thought I would cover some new ground on this important section of the New Testament.

Context, when reading any passage of the Bible, is crucial to understanding it.  When we look at the context of Romans 9-11, we immediately discover that the Apostle Paul is speaking of the national condition of Israel.  If you take nothing else from this post, please take that!  Every verse in Romans 9-11 is advancing Paul’s treatment of national Israel.

Dr. Barry Leventhal, of Southern Evangelical Seminary, explains that Romans 9-11 can be outlined as Paul asking and answering a series of four questions:

  1. Haven’t God’s promises to Israel utterly failed? (Rom. 9:1-29)
  2. Why then did Israel fail to attain the righteousness of God? (Rom. 9:30-10:21)
  3. So then God has finally rejected Israel, hasn’t he? (Rom. 11:1-10)
  4. If Israel’s failure is neither total nor final, then what possible purposes could her failure serve in the overall plan of God? (Rom. 11:11-36)

Rather then answering these questions in this blog post, I invite the reader to read these three chapters and attempt to answer these questions herself.

A final point.  Some Christians attempt to draw from these chapters doctrines about individual believers’ justification before God.  But Paul has already dealt with individual justification in the first four chapters of Romans.  Certainly Paul could review what he taught in chapters 1-4, but the context of chapters 9-11 seems to deal with a completely different topic.  So be very careful when making claims about justification from chapters 9-11; you may be placing the words of Paul in a subservient position to your particular theological views.

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Should We Not Read the Bible? Part 5

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Continuing from part 4 of this series, we now turn to more of the mistakes critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  These mistakes are taken from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.

Mistake #11: Presuming that the Bible Approves of All it Records.

Not everything recorded in the Bible is approved by the Bible.  The Bible recounts the sinful acts of many people throughout its pages, but it does not promote these sinful acts.  Critics will often point to polygamy, deception, or any number of other immoral acts in the Bible to prove that God actively promotes those acts.  These things are recorded so that the readers of the Bible may learn from the mistakes of others.

Mistake 12: Forgetting that the Bible Uses Non-technical, Everyday Language.

The biblical authors used common, everyday language to convey truth.  They were not attempting to write in scholarly or scientific terms.  As Geisler and Howe state, “The use of observational, nonscientific language is not unscientific, it is merely prescientific. The Scriptures were written in ancient times by ancient standards, and it would be anachronistic to superimpose modern scientific standards upon them.”

Mistake 13: Assuming that Round Numbers Are False.

Much like the previous mistake, it is unreasonable to expect biblical authors, in a prescientific age, to use precise numbers with several significant digits.  Numbers are sometimes rounded off and there is nothing deceptive or false about this practice.  The Bible is not a math textbook.

Mistake 14: Neglecting to Note that the Bible Uses Different Literary Devices.

There are numerous literary styles used in the Bible, including parable, poetry, allegory, historical narrative, apocalypse, personal letter, epistle, song, and others.  These different literary styles make use of metaphor, simile, satire, hyperbole, and other figures of speech.  It is the job of the reader to recognize when a figure of speech is being employed.  “Obviously when the Bible speaks of the believer resting under the shadow of God’s ‘wings’ (Ps. 36:7), it does not mean that God is a feathered bird.”

Three more mistakes to go…

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Should We Not Read the Bible? Part 4

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Continuing from part 3 of this series, we now turn to more of the mistakes critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  These mistakes are taken from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.

Mistake #8: Assuming that a Partial Report is a False Report.

Sometimes multiple authors in the Bible describe the same historical events, but not in the exact same way.  Each report is a partial report from a particular point of view.  Critics attack the biblical authors for recounting different and divergent facts about the same event, but conversely would accuse the authors of collusion or plagiarism if they recounted the exact same facts in the exact same way.

For example, just because the four Gospel writers recorded different details about the life of Jesus does not mean that they are being deceptive.  Every historian chooses particular facts to convey to his readers, depending on what his purpose is.  It is completely unrealistic to expect anything different from the biblical authors.

Mistake #9: Demanding that NT Citations of the OT Always Be Exact Quotations.

Critics sometimes point to NT citations of the OT as proof of error because the citations do not exactly match the words of the OT.  This, however, does not follow.  It was commonly acceptable, and still is today, to paraphrase someone else’s statement as long as the meaning of the statement is conserved, even if the exact words are not.  As Geisler and Howe state, “The same meaning can be conveyed without using the same verbal expressions.”

Mistake 10: Assuming that Divergent Accounts Are False Ones.

This mistake closely resemble mistake number #8, but stresses that not only are partial reports not necessarily false, but neither are divergent accounts.  Again, just because two biblical authors record differing details of one historical event does not mean that they are mistaken or deceitful.

A good example is the account of Judas Iscariot’s death.  “Matthew (27:5) informs us that Judas hanged himself. But Luke says that ‘he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out’ (Acts 1:18). Once more, these accounts differ, but they are not mutually exclusive. If Judas hanged himself on a tree over the edge of a cliff and his body fell on sharp rocks below, then his entrails would gush out just as Luke vividly describes.”

Seven more mistakes to go…