The Bible is not infallible, that is, free of all error, not even the four gospels representing the words of Jesus himself. If fundamentalists desire to challenge this assumption, several detailed contradictions in scriptural testimony are pointed out below.

First, there is a direct contradiction between II Chronicles 22:2 and II Kings 8:26 in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Both are referring to King Ahaziah of Judah, son of Jehoram or Joram (his father and previous king) and Athaliah (his mother, the daughter of Omri, king of Israel). II Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign. II Chronicles 22:2 says that he was 42 when he began to reign. This is a direct contradiction: They cannot both be right. The "infallible" King James version has exactly the same contradiction!

Is this a big deal? Not really. George Lamsa’s translation of the ancient Eastern Peshitta Bible (utilized for direct quotes here unless otherwise specified) corrects II Chronicles 22:2 from age 42 to 22, thus eradicating the contradiction in that version of the biblical text. How did the error originate? Probably a scribal transcription error many centuries ago. The original texts most likely agreed that Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign. Sane fundamentalists may temporarily celebrate.

Since fundamentalists usually claim that the King James Bible is the infallible one (except for King Ahaziah’s age), we will now examine the King James genealogy of Jesus in Matthew versus same in Luke. Luke goes all the way back to Adam (Matthew stops at Abraham), so we will compare only from Abraham to Jesus, actually Abraham to Joseph, husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Virgin Birth has nothing to do with the problem here). These are found in Mt 1:2-16 and Lk 3:23-34. Beginning with Joseph and going backward to Abraham, these are charted below:

* (these were kings of Judah before Babylonian deportation)

The first obvious problem with Matthew versus Luke is the question of whether Joseph’s father was Jacob or Heli? Perhaps this person was known by two names, which is not uncommon in the Bible. Then, Matthan would be Matthat (likely) and Eleazar would be another name for Levi? This might possibly be the case.

Now comes the BIG problem! Between this point and King David, there is no agreement between Matthew and Luke concerning either the names of the forefathers or even how many there were. Most of Matthew’s genealogy at this point consists of Judean kings who are well documented in the Old Testament. Between Eleazar (Levi?) and David are 22 names, including Solomon. Luke’s version of same not only has totally different names, but has 15 more of them, 37 in all. All of these names are men (father begat son) as is traditional for genealogies.

Even if we go along with the ridiculous assumption that all 22 of these names in Matthew had aliases listed in Luke, we cannot explain how Luke has 15 more fathers in the same family tree than does Matthew.

Another ridiculous fundamentalist argument is that Joseph descended both from the lines of Solomon (Matthew’s version) and Nathan (Luke’s version). Think! One father can have two sons, but one son cannot have two (earthly) fathers! There is no way that BOTH Matthew and Luke can be right here. Anybody who claims otherwise after examining scripture’s own testimony is lying. One male son must be the descendent of only one male father, not two. Likewise his son only had one father, etc. Joseph cannot possibly be the descendent of both Solomon and Nathan unless somebody down the line had two human fathers, one from each blood line. Fundamentalists already know that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, and we all know that two homosexuals cannot both be the father of the same child, unless God did some really weird stuff back then!

Some fundamentalist will doubtless claim that one (or more) of the names in Luke or Matthew is a mother’s name, so that these are actually two different branches of a family tree. Nonsense! Listing women in genealogies was unheard of in those days, and there is absolutely not the slightest hint from scripture itself that any of these names were women. In fact, Luke specifically says "the son of" and Matthew "the father of" throughout the genealogies. Look it up! The two genealogies disagree. Either Matthew or Luke was wrong. That’s at least one error somewhere. The Bible is fallible.

Next? Well, maybe Matthew’s genealogy was symbolic and Luke’s literal. Maybe so, but fundamentalists also believe in the literal interpretation of scripture. They teach that even the parables of Jesus are also literally as well as figuratively true. Not knowing how they propose to explain what Jesus said at the Lord’s Supper, suffice it to say that you can’t have it both ways. You cannot have a symbolic but literally untrue genealogy in a literally inspired infallible Bible. That’s another contradiction in itself.

Luke was probably correcting Matthew’s unhistorical fabled pro-Judean genealogy. Luke practically says in Lk 1:1-3 that he’s correcting Mark and Matthew’s order of events, and he is probably correcting Matthew’s genealogy here.

Many other examples of biblical fallibility can be cited, but most are not as clear cut and obvious as this genealogy problem. There are numerous passages in the Old Testament where God forbids eating certain foods. Jesus repudiates these teachings in the gospels. For example, the 11^th chapter of Leviticus details out to a gnat’s eyebrow what the Jews are allowed to eat and what they’re not allowed to eat. Furthermore, it is God (Yahweh, the Lord) speaking. Leviticus 11:1-3 says, "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, and said to them, Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, These are the beasts which you shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth: Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud among the beasts, that you may eat." Leviticus 11:6-8 says, "And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; it is unclean to you. And the swine, though it divide the hoof and is cloven-footed, yet it does not chew the cud; it is unclean to you. Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcass you shall not touch; they are unclean to you." This not only rules out eating rabbit and pork, but these Jews were apparently not allowed to pet bunnies or play football (with pigskins) either. Leviticus 11 goes on to detail which fish and other creatures may be eaten and which are unclean.

Just in case you forgot, Jesus and his disciples were Jews steeped in tradition including the verses cited above. Here’s what the Christ, Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, and Jesus of Nazareth had to say about the matter in Mark 7:15, 18-23: "There is nothing outside of a man, if it should enter into him, which can defile him; but what goes out of him, that defiles the man … Do you not know that whatever enters into a man from outside cannot defile him? Because it does not enter into his heart, but into his stomach, and then is thrown out through the intestines, thereby purifying the food. It is what goes out of a man which defiles the man. For from within, from the hearts of men come evil thoughts, such as fornication, adultery, theft, murder … deceit … All these evils come from within, and they defile a man." This is about as clear a contradiction as one will find in scripture. Jesus, the perfect one third of the sacrosanct Holy Trinity, has just repudiated the entire 11^th chapter of the infallible Mosaic Law’s 3^rd book. I could go on to describe how Paul repudiated the 12^th chapter of same regarding circumcision, but I’ll leave that task for the reader. It’s not much of a task though, in fact it’s easy.

Fundamentalists don’t say that only the New Testament is infallible while the Old Testament is fallible. They say that the Bible, all of it, is infallible. They have just been proven wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt by the Bible itself! If we desired to conduct a comprehensive search, we could probably find many more contradictions, near-contradictions, or at least conflicts in scripture. A couple more examples will suffice for the present.

In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus repudiates Old Testament Law again when he defends the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath. Exodus 20:10 (God speaking) says, "But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work …" The contradiction here is uncertain because picking grain might not constitute work. In fact, David likewise violated this law in I. Samuel 21:1-6 when he ate the bread of the Presence, or at least Jesus said he did in Mark 2:26: Speaking of David, Jesus says, "how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful …" The context of Jesus’ comment was his defense of his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath.

Now, here’s the blatant contradiction: I. Samuel 21:1 says that Ahimelech (not Abiathar) was high priest when this happened. Abiathar was high priest later (II Samuel 15:35). This contradiction is pointed out in the footnotes of the Oxford Annotated Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, my source for this knowledge. Looking up the passages bears it out. Was Jesus wrong about his history or was there an error in the Old Testament? I will assume the latter for the purpose of this essay. Either way, the Bible contradicts itself once more, and is again found to be fallible.

Perhaps the most blatant rejection of the infallibility of Old Testament Law is in Hebrews 8:7-8. Referring to Jesus’ attitude toward the Old Testament (first covenant), it says, "For if the first covenant had been faultless, then there would have been no need for the second. For he found fault with them and said, Behold the day is coming, says the Lord, when I will perfect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…" Excuse me, but I do believe that faultless means infallible, and that the document containing the first covenant is called the Bible!

Would you like one more proof that the Bible is fallible? The famous "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" saying is contained in Leviticus 24:17-20. In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus says, "You have heard that it is said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you that you should not resist evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." Where "you have heard that it is said" is Leviticus 24:17-20 in the "infallible" Bible! Read it for yourself! Regardless of which view you happen to believe, the two views are contradictory! Moses said one thing. Jesus contradicted him. They are both in the Bible! They cannot both be right!

We could go on, but enough is enough. I will not bore you with a long dissertation about all the burnt offerings that God commanded his people to do in Numbers 15:1-27 and lots of other places in the Old Testament. If the Bible was infallible then and is still literally inspired, free from error, and eternally infallible now, shouldn’t the fundamentalists be having a lot more barbecues unto Jehovah in their back yards? Oh well, we won’t count that one.

If there is one contradiction in the Bible, it is not infallible - that’s the definition of the word! Score thus far: The Facts 5, fundamentalists 0. Game over! The Facts win. The Bible is fallible, period. That fact is the starting point for all operating assumptions about scripture and its interpretation. Denial of that fact is not only ignorant but downright dishonest! One Mosaic Law that I will uphold is Exodus 20:16, "you shall not bear false witness …" Fundamentalism is a lie. The Bible proves it. Case closed.

Does this mean that scripture cannot be trusted to be basically accurate? Not at all. A few mistakes amidst a sea of testimony does not invalidate the whole thing. To assume that it does would be a gigantic logical fallacy!

Despite much error, prejudice, and ethnocentrism contained within its covers, the Bible is nonetheless the greatest collection of religious and spiritual writings known to humanity. Despite the historically questionable nature of some of its contents (myth, legend, etc.), it is still basically a history of the ancient Jewish and early Christian people. It shows the historical progress of a very imperfect people from the ancient warlord God concept toward the loving Father God concept of Jesus. If we look at scripture through the lens of history rather than that of superstition and fear, the result can be something other than irrational emotionalism and knee-jerk reactionary babble.

Serious consideration of the Bible is especially important insofar as the first four books of the New Testament (second covenant) are concerned. Nobody else in the Bible claimed to be the Son of God as Jesus did. Was he delusional? If so, why do so many of his teachings ring true in life? Is there any other way than the way of Jesus? What does this all mean? What really happened and why? The history of Jesus, limited as it is to us, is nonetheless the most important literature we could possibly possess. We don’t know for sure how historical the four gospels really are, but we do know that they’re about all we really have on the subject. Modern archaeology has discovered few New Testament texts dated before 400 A.D., and modern biblical higher criticism and scholarship started about 1,700 years too late to provide many real facts about Jesus. Most of this New Testament scholarship is hypothesis at best. None of it is proven.

There is no really convincing reason to deny that the content of the four gospels, especially the words attributed to Jesus, are basically correct. Can this assumption be proven true beyond the shadow of a doubt right now on planet earth? No, but it cannot be proven false either. Scholars have been arguing about this for centuries, and I will not attempt to assert my non-authority on the issue either way. Where does this leave us? The four gospels may or may not be basically authentic records of the teachings of Jesus. Since they MIGHT BE authentic and since they contain claims by Jesus that he was the Son of God, therefore, it behooves us to take these writings seriously.

Due to the fact that no scholar or historian has been able to convince me otherwise, I am working on the assumption that the four gospels are essentially authentic, probably colored somewhat by viewpoint, tradition, and human imperfection, but mostly valid. That view is a far cry from biblical infallibility, but it stands a much greater chance of being the truth, especially since the latter view’s chances have been proven to be zero percent.

Biblical Infallibility is a Myth *** Scripture Proves itself Fallible by its own Testimony *** Contradictions Abound *** And Their Witnesses Did Not Agree *** Proof that the Bible is Fallible *** History, not Superstition or Ignorance, is the Key to Biblical Interpretation and Understanding *** Bible Not Perfect