Problems with biblical inerrancy (Part 2)

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman." (ASV)

In this case, Jesus is obviously not a vine. He is using symbolic language. Other passages in the Bible are more ambiguous; they might be translated literally or symbolically. For example, Genesis 3:15 describes Jehovah talking to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. He says:

"and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou salt bruise his heel." (ASV)

Some Bible scholars interpret the verse literally, that the men and women who are descendants of Eve (i.e. the entire human race) and the descendants of the serpent (i.e. all the snakes in the world) will hate and attack each other. The phrase "he shall" is interpreted in the collective sense to refer to all of humanity. Other Bible scholars interpret the verse symbolically. They believe that it is linked to Romans 16:20:

"The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."

The "he shall bruise thy head" phrase in Genesis refers to Jesus triumphing over Satan. As a result of this interpretation, Genesis 3:15 is sometimes referred to as the "protean", the first gospel. ₁

There are many Bible Passages that have been interpreted literally by some groups and symbolically by others. This generally leads to conflict, and has historically triggered many church schisms.
 

	Some other writer subsequently added verses 9 to 20, to make a "longer ending" to Mark; these additional verses were apparently based on Luke, John and some other sources. 2
	Another writer created a "shorter ending" consisting of two sentences after verse 8. It was also a later addition, probably based on Matthew. Some translations include both endings.
	Still other Bible versions include additional material after verse 14.

All of this multiple authorship raises the question whether the later additions by unknown authors are inerrant, or merely attempts by later believers to augment the text to better match some early Christian group's evolving belief system.
 

	Some conservative Christians accept the verses in Proverbs at their face value: Proverbs requires all believers to use corporal punishment on their children as the main method of discipline.
	Some liberal Christians might interpret Proverbs as accurately representing Solomon's parenting style, and interpret 1 Kings as indicating the horrible outcome of that form of discipline. Thus, 1 Kings is a warning to parents to not follow Solomon's advice, to avoid hitting their children, and to rely on other, non-violent forms of discipline.

Since these two interpretations are mutually exclusive, at least one is probably false. But a consensus cannot be reached at this time as to which is in error. The secular belief that hitting children is counter-productive appears to be gaining ground at this time, and is supported by studies linking the spanking of children with increased levels youth rage and criminal activities, and of alcoholism, drug addiction, clinical depression and anxiety once they reach adulthood.
 

Internal Conflicts: Various passages in the Bible appear to be in conflict with each other. To liberal/progressive Christians, these disagreements are consistent with their beliefs that the books of the Bible were written over a period of about 1 millennium, by authors with very different religious views. But to conservative Christians who believe in Biblical inerrancy, conflicts present a problem. If all passages of the Bible were inerrant, then no passage can truly contradict any other passage. Such problems have been resolved using various techniques:

• Many conflicts can be handled by interpreting one passage in its literal sense, and other, apparently conflicting, passages either in some narrow sense or symbolically. Unfortunately, different faith groups will often select different passages to interpret literally.
  
  
• Some passages cannot be harmonized in this way. Conservatives usually believe that the latter passages can be resolved in theory, but not with our present knowledge. Books harmonizing hundreds of apparent conflicts have been written. One attempts to solve over 500 such difficulties. ₇
  
  
• The ultimate resolution method is to assume that errors have crept in to the original autograph copy as it was manually copied and recopied through the years. Religious conservatives are often reluctant to resort to this approach because it throws doubt on some passages in current translations of the Bible.
  
  

The nature of Truth - absolute or relative: It is sometimes not obvious whether a portion of the Bible refers:

• Only to a particular society at a particular time, or
• Only to one society for all time, or
• For all societies only at a particular time, or
• For all locations and all times.

For example:

In 1 Corinthians, chapters 11 & 14, Paul advises the Christians at Corinth to restrict the roles of women to positions of little or no authority and under the supervision of men. These passages are often quoted in debates over whether women should be allowed to be ordained as clergy. Other passages, particularly from the Hebrew Scriptures, describe the position of women as greatly inferior to men, and often as an item of property. Some liberal Christians believe that Paul's instructions to the church at Corinth was in response to a specific problem in that city in which women were disrupting services; they might interpret limits on the roles of women in the Hebrew Scriptures as being accurate representations of the oppression of women within early Hebrew society. But they might also believe that such passages are not applicable in today's society where limitations and restrictions on women have been largely removed after centuries of effort by pro-democracy movements and the feminist movement. Meanwhile, many conservative Christians regard St. Paul's instructions to the Corinthians as being equally valid today; their denominations often deny ordination to women.

The Bible has many references to slavery. Much of the conflict that led to the American civil war was fueled by differences in interpretation of Biblical passages on this topic: Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, said that slavery "was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation." Rev. Alexander Campbell, a Christian leader at the time said: "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." A contemporary of Campbell, Rev. R. Furman, said: "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Meanwhile, abolitionists argued that the teachings of Jesus made the ownership of human beings a sin. Many of the arguments over slavery revolved around whether the institution was an acceptable practice for all times and all societies, or whether it was no longer permissible in 19th century North America. Clearly, the matter could not be resolved theologically at the time. In North America, it was eventually settled by a political consensus in Canada and, much later, by a civil war in the U.S.