There is a common line of argument that comes into almost any apologetic discussion between the Baha'i and Christian when discussing the internally contradictory doctrines observable within Baha'i theology. Rather than try to address the immediate issues represented by those problems, the Baha'i adherent will often respond by trying to shift the discussion to Bible errors. The Bible, they will say, is as full of internally contradictory errors as what might be observed within the Baha'i theological writings. This, one is told, reveals too literal a reading of any of the texts, Baha'i as well as biblical, and reveals misunderstanding and misinterpretation, not true error.

The Baha'i, however, will fail to observe several crucial points in this line of thought. First, it needs to be observed that the Baha'i writings, unlike the Bible, are incredibly voluminous contemporary documents. Interpretation of their intended meaning, literal or symbolic, is not the same thing as biblical exegesis which involves careful scholarly work on ancient documents, including the consideration of ancient Greek and Hebrew cultural idiom and language usage. Also, one will discover that the litany of Bible errors consists of either translational errors, non vital and rectfiable scribal errors in transmition of the biblical autographa over many millenia, misrepresentation of trivializing discrepancies of detail, controversies involving other non essential issues, the taking of text out of context so as to read meaning into the text that was never intended by the writer, or scholarly mistakes in the interpretation of the text of these ancient documents.

The Baha'i theological errors, on the other hand, exist in mutually contradictory defining principles concerning basic and fundamental theological doctrines. They exist in very clear statements set in a context of exhaustively detailed and elaborate description that is easy to understand in its contemporary nature.Thus, from both a scholarly and spiritual perspective, the argument that Bible errors are the same as (and legitimize) Baha'i doctrinal contradictions can be shown to be a false argument.

We must look at the nature of the "errors" we are speaking of. We must compare Baha'i doctrinal inconsistencies with alleged Bible "errors" on two fronts. 1.) Are they really just the "same thing"? In other words are the errors we can find of the same "quality" or not? Trivial scribal errors (manuscript copyists errors in genealogies etc) are NOT the same thing as blatant contradictions on major doctrinal concepts. And , 2) Are these Bible "errors" really legitimate errors at all. The Bible consists of ancient documents that are not always as "easy" on a surface reading as the more contemporary Baha'i writings. Thus they are easy for cynics to misunderstand, and misrepresent. If a difficult Bible passage appears, one must honestly try to look beneath what may appear to be an "error" on that surface reading to see if there is a legitimate explanation beneath the apparent problem. Of course the person set upon finding Bible discrepancies will not look into the matter any further than finding an "error" and then will rest content that there has been revealed the errancy of Scripture in terms of any "literal" reading. Also, the Baha'i writings being more contemporary and extremely voluminous, such misinterpretational confusion with respect to them (linguistic, cultural/idiomatic, trivial copyist error, etc.) is less likely.

On another front, we must recognize that the kind of extremist, radical "fundamentalism" so often characterized by Baha'i theology as representing mainstream Christianity does not represent it at all. Baha'i teaching presents examples of outlandish fundamentalist extremism as if it represents a legitimate Christian point of view in an attempt to dismiss the criticism that mainstream greater Christian community brings against it. Such a line of argument grossly misrepresents legitimate mainstream Christian belief. Let's keep in mind that for Baha'is, the term "Christian fundamentalist" would necessarily include any Bible believing Christian who would not accept the radical symbolic redefining Baha'u'llah uses to redefine Scripture's original intended message. Certainly Christians, who would utterly reject that symbolically altered Bible of Baha'u'llah that contends with major Scriptural themes, would likewise not define their Christianity in the extreme fundamentalist terms that Baha'i critics invariably misrepresent Christianity with in their presentation of Bible "errors". Such an attempt to corral Christian belief into such extremist, legalistic, fundamentalism only serves to set up a straw man that does not represent or define true Christian doctrine or belief.

Beyond actual Bible "errors" Baha'is cite the many conflicting denominational differences both from within the historic Christian world, and the sects that border it's periphery. This, they accuse, is a sign of the invalidity and ineffectiveness of the Christian outlook where interpreting Scripture is concerned. Baha'i religion, they assert, has perfect unity by comparison and thus proves itself the true church of the true God. Whether there have been any schismatic sects within Baha'i religion depends upon another Baha'i double standard where terms are defined. Christian denominationalism is labeled as the sign of a divisive lack of a true inspired religion, while the definitive offshoot sects of Baha'i religion (and they exist in numbers) are somehow dismissed as heretic "covenant breakers", and not divisive offshoot sects at all. Baha'is claim an impossible "unity" in the face of objectively observable divisiveness. Many Christian denominations could make the same claim with respect to their divergent outlooks on various issues (and often have) in terms of the world of legitimate Christian denominationalism. Such is simply the ignoring of objective reality. But it is a simple observation that virtually all of the world's Christian denominations are more ecumenically honest than that in at least their mutual recognition of the "Christian" reality of denominationalism within the bounds of the core essential fundamentals they all share.

A good book that illuminates the point I am making is one written by Protestant authors Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie entitled Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, Agreements and Differences. On page 17 they make a statement that underscores what I am relaying.

"...both Catholics and orthodox Protestants have a common creedal and Augustinian doctrinal background. Both groups accept the creeds and confessions and councils of the Christian Church of the first five centuries. Both claim Augustine as a mentor. ...The doctrinal unity with Roman Catholics includes ... virtually all the so-called Fundamentals, such as the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, his substitutionary death, his bodily Resurrection, and his second coming,...and...salvation by Grace."

How can we predictably discover what these "Fundamentals" are that define legitimate Christianity? A good measure of discernment, cited from the same book by MacKenzie and Geisler, is a quote that helps us in assessing the sum of Christian doctrines. It was coined by Vincent of Lirens who lived in the fifth century,

"One should believe only what has been held always, everywhere and by all."

This isn't to say that other beliefs within the bounds of denominations who share the common core of mutually held fundamentals are nesacerily "wrong". But it is to say that dogmatism should be limited by overall consensus of the Church through its history. When we do this, we discover the Fundamentals of the Historic Christian Faith and how denominationalism differs from cults like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses who stand distinctly outside those unifying fundamentals of the Christian Faith.

This truth reveals the invalidity of the many non Christian arguments which cite extreme fringe or outright heretical beliefs that exist or have existed within the realm of "Christianity" as a means with which to discredit Christianity's overall legitimacy. It does not do so. For there is a core of Fundamentals that define well what the Gospel intends. Such a core of Christian Fundamentals definitively contends with Baha'i theological doctrines.

Baha'i religion, on the other hand, does not accept its "denominational" splinter groups as being "Baha'i. Thus, their claim of unbroken "unity" is one artificially created by a willingness to simply ignore divisive offshoot groups. This they do by cavalierly redefining as "non Baha'i" the identity of controversial offshoot groups within their own religious belief system which, in reality, are not unlike the divisions they point out in other religions. But I think it is important to observe that the differences Baha'is observe across the span of Christian denominationalism do not simply represent randomly wild conflict without a reasoned pattern. What they have observed has happened over the nearly 2,000 year span of spiritually active church history. That 2,000 years of struggle with its constant need to reform corruption is telling of humanity's frailty, not the integrity of Scripture's intended message and certainly not Scripture's portrayal of Christ. It is observable that by the end of the Middle Ages the Catholic church, through human corruption, was in need of major reform. But notice I said "reform". Not progressive revelation, but a call to reform; always an attempt to return to the original intention of Scripture. Thus one should recognize at least that the differences in a theory of progressive and relative truth, and denominationalism's struggle to find absolute, eternal truth as taught by Scripture, create a genuine dichotomy, a very non trivial and fundamental difference on a spiritual topic of foundational significance. Whether we feel a need to hearken back to things, "as from the beginning" as Christ taught, or look ahead for truth to change with the times as Baha'u'llah teaches, determines very different implications for our faith.

The Baha'i contention is that subsequent generations of believers always distort the intention of the original prophet. But Christianity's denominationalism is evidence that the Christian community has always sought to struggle back toward Scripture's original intention. It is evidence of man's flawed nature, but the Holy Spirit's constant attempt to reform human corruption. That very impetus is one of the driving forces that would never allow the Christian to believe Baha'i doctrines that promote relative or progressive truth, or that would symbolize away the obvious original intention of Scripture. The observable struggle along the continuum of historical Christianity has been driven by its attempt to uphold the Bible's eternal message against mankind's fickleness and corruption.

As we read the following litany of alleged Bible inconsistencies, we can observe that the foundation these arguments themselves rest on is the very literal and narrow legalism they presume to criticize in Christian belief, only turned inside out. The arguments are utterly dependent upon a rigid reading to create "literal" errors while ignoring context, culturally idiomatic and linguistic considerations that bear upon the writing of Scripture, and spiritual intent obvious in the verses in question. It is a literal, fundamentalist, perspective, only on the opposite extreme of the literal fundamentalist Bible fanatic. The extremist Bible fundamentalist refuses to concede that any scribe ever forgot to cross a "t" or dot an "i". The legalistic cynic, on the other hand, is ready to trash Scripture's inerrancy as soon as he finds an undotted "i". Such religious head banging is as wrong on the one extreme as the other. Many of the Baha'i lines of argument that present Bible "errors" in an attempt to demonstrate the Bible's general lack of "literal" reliability are ones borrowed from such a blatantly cynical anti Bible perspective.

It is worth noting that trivial discrepancies in Bible detail actually help authenticate the believability of the Bible's message. Any historical scholar would view such insignificant differences in multiple versions of any ancient documents as strong evidence that the otherwise overwhelming agreement in the stories independently reveals a common root of authentic truth. The authors reveal in the subtle kinds of differences Bible cynics call "errors", that there was no conspiracy to compare notes and "get the story straight" as it were. When this point is realized, the overwhelming "sameness" in what are obviously four independent Gospel versions is a strong authenticating aspect of the Bible, not one that deters from its authenticity. It is what one would expect to find if, in fact, the Gospel versions were written somewhat independently. Even living witnesses of an event will tell slightly different versions of an event in terms of details when asked to recall what happened. Certainly we don't compare their differences and accuse them of lying. We gain a truer picture of what happened by comparing what they have to say in common, observing that they share those mainly common aspects of their first hand report as witnesses sharing their separate versions totally independent from one another. Now this is not to say that the New Testament authors were blind to one another's work or that there is no sharing of witness testimony whatsoever across the Gospels. It is simply to point out that where these minor discrepancies occur in the actual witness testimony, they reflect the inevitable variation one would expect from various witnesses telling the same story through the filter of personal perspective. It is significant to point out that these "errors" do not affect the spiritual themes and intentions of the Bible authors. Neither do they affect the general "plot" of the stories. What they do is reveal the genuinely independent liberty in testimony of the various witnesses versions. That proof of independent witness corroboration is far more significant in defending Bible accuracy about what really happened than the nature of any of the trivial differences in detail are that reveal overall independent agreement concerning the vital points in the story of Jesus.

It is worth pointing out that even with respect to such subtle differences in Bible story versions, such critics as those who blindly trivialize around the obvious message of a scripture to find "mistakes" are most likely searching for errors from the perspective of a scoffing cynic with a predetermined agenda, and many of the "mistakes" likely aren't even legitimate trivia when looked at more closely. However, where Baha'i religion is concerned, we need to keep one point clearly in mind. Discrepancies on trivial detail are not the same thing as contradictions of major spiritual themes, principles, or doctrines. Thus, the Bible "errors" typically used by Baha'is to attempt to demonstrate how Christian's literal reading of Scripture is impossibly wrong are invalid examples of "error" in comparison to the internally contradictory examples of basic spiritual doctrine found within Baha'i theology.

One other introductory observation needs to be made before plunging into consideration of Baha'i Bible "errors". The zeal with which these "errors" are presented more often than not ends up in arguments that, if they were true, would create unintentional but inevitably destructive implications concerning the basic efficacy of the Bible on any level, interpretational differences notwithstanding. This line of argument against the Bible, Baha'i theology itself could not rationally survive. For in their enthusiasm to prove that Christians take things too literally, Baha'is often present lines of argument against the Bible that are borrowed from even atheistic non Christian lines of thought that end up going far beyond just trying to demonstrate that the Bible can't be taken literally. These arguments move into the realm of simply trashing the Bible's legitimacy wholesale. Lines of thought that caste doubt as to the basic validity or historic dependability of the biblical text itself or the dependability and honest intentions of the authorship of Scripture end up being self defeating arguments for Baha'is who are supposed to believe that the Bible is, in fact, the inspired Word of God on SOME level. This is a surprisingly blind but common logical problem that plays itself out within the Christian/Baha'i dialogue. Baha'is who simply want to demonstrate that Christians take things too literally end up unwittingly attempting to destroy any level of validity in the Bible in their argumentation. This, one observes, goes against basic Baha'i belief about the Bible!

Of course the following examples are not exhaustive. However, they establish a consistent and true pattern at work within the Christian/Baha'i dialogue. With these ideas in mind I would now like to review some of the fascinating Bible "errors" that have been presented as evidence of the "too literal" outlook of Christians.

 

Baha'i Bible "error":

Jesus took three of his disciples Peter, James, and John, his brother, to the high mountain near Caesarea Phillippi. [JUST DOWN THE COAST FROM HAIFA] When they were on the mountain and he was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with Him. Then answered Peter, to Jesus, Lord it is good for us to be here; if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he spoke a bright cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice out of the cloud said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him. When they heard this they were afraid...and His disciples asked Him saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must come first? And He said, Elias is come already, and they knew him not...then they understood that he meant John the Baptist. Matthew 17:1-13.

If the disciples of Jesus were not too clear about who was and wasn't Elias' return (even after living with Him for a long time), it is not surprising that there may be confusion about what Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah said, wrote, and meant.


Christian response:


The Peter referred to in Matthew 17 is a far different man with far different knowledge than the later one from Acts 2. The post Pentecostal Peter is not the same as the one who denied Jesus three times or was "confused" at the transfiguration. The Baha'i argument makes a wrong general point about the apostle's knowledge and inspiration because it cites an incident that happened before the inspiration came. If Jesus told them He would send them the Spirit to "teach them all things" it was not until after He had died, been raised up, and the Pentecost occurred before God was to give them the indwelling Spirit Christ promised. The very clear chronology of biblical events that happened AFTER Matthew 17 renders the invalidity of this Baha'i argument.


Baha'i Bible "error":


The King James Version of the Bible is the most widely used version of the Bible today. It is also the most mistranslated version of the Bible today, having more than 100,000 mistranslations and twice as many errors in its NT than in its OT. Thus we can see that it is impossible to have such a "literal" insistence on Bible interpretation.


Christian response:

According to this line of argument, the Bible is not a reliable document because its translators made mistakes. Assuming that one would hold this presupposition we would need to see the exact nature of the 100,000 errors so casually mentioned without telling us how significant they might (or might not be) to the themes and messages the Scriptures would relay to us. Subtle differences in words and linguistic nuances that do not change the significance of meaning of Biblical truths I'm sure inflate the validity of this astounding "statistic" more than the presenter has seen fit to share.

But the hope to crush the reliability of Scripture through pointing out translational errors has some interesting twists to it that confirm and reconfirm for the Christian the Spirit protected infallibility of the Bible. First of all, we can easily observe that the "errors" in the King James translation, when compared to the more accurate modern translations done by teams of expert scholars, does not corrupt the intended fundamentals of traditional historic Christianity. They remain the same, understandable in all translations; KJ, NIV, NAS. Certainly one would choose the most accurate version one could find and one written in a style most easy to comprehend. However it is excitingly to the point to relay how God has used these very "mistakes" cited to reveal truly false prophets that wouldn't have been as easy to reveal without them! The mistakes the presenter would have us believe render the Bible's errancy, have actually helped uphold it's integrity. "How so", you might well ask. This classic example is in regards to the Mormons and their prophet Joseph Smith. Smith told critics that his "other testament" of Jesus did not plagiarize from the King James Bible as they had accused him. He said that since the source of this "other testament" was the same as that of the original New Testament, we could expect there to be many similarities. What he could not have known at the time, however, was that the plagiarizing that he did in fact do, was inclusive of the King James translational "errors", proving with certainty that his "revelation" was a fake and certainly not from the prime source he had claimed. He was a false prophet who plagiarized translational errors. Thus the errors, while not hurting the integrity of the themes of Scripture, were a secret internal marker that revealed a lack of integrity on the part of Joseph Smith. Thus, we can see what is a weak argument. For the Spirit that drives God's Word cannot be thrown off track by the translational errors of men who are at work in earnest for God. He can and does use them to fuel the fire of truth.


Baha'i Bible "error":


Consider the time that Jesus died. Jesus said that he would be in the ground for three days and three nights. One cannot calculate three days and three nights from "Good Friday" to "Easter Sunday" before His resurrection (see Matt. 12:38-40). Friday and Saturday nights are two nights, and Saturday is one day. This is only one day and two nights, what about the other two days and one night?


Christian response

This argument tries to show that any literal reading concerning Jesus' Resurrection is wrong. In His book The Wine of Astonishment William Sears, Baha'i apologist, also tries to try to tell us that Jesus never intended a literal interpretation of His impending "Resurrection".


"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."


Sears says on page 162 of his book,

"Christ was crucified on the day which has come, among Christians, to be known as Good Friday. He arose or was resurrected from the earth on what is called Easter Sunday. Obviously he was then only two nights, Friday night and Saturday night, in the earth and not three nights as Christ promised he would be. The meaning is obviously a symbolic one."


But if Jesus had made a vague, inaccurate, and misleading prediction in Matthew 12:39 which somehow showed that He meant His Resurrection to be taken only figuratively, then we must wonder why all of His many other predictions about how long He would remain in the tomb do agree with one another, literally, and with the actual Gospel accounts of the Resurrection. (consideration of a broader Biblical context). Even if the Resurrection was to have been symbolic of the disciple's dead faith for a period of time, this still wouldn't explain why Jesus would have seemed to have purposely contradicted Himself in only this one passage. We must honestly investigate and not jump to the Sears' hasty, out of context, conclusion. Why would this scripture seem to stand alone in disagreement? In actuality it doesn't. Simply stated, it is a culturally linguistic fact that within the Jewish language of that time the term "a day and a night" would have been idiomatically equal to any part of a day. There is no contradiction and this passage too can be seen as meaning that Jesus was to be in the tomb for "three days". But let us go further to consider why such a singular literal discrepancy on this issue was even used by Jesus, who certainly wasn't trying to confuse us or contradict Himself.

Jesus was indeed speaking symbolically in this passage, but not in the fashion Bahai's purport. In drawing the symbolic connection between Himself and Jonah, He used the term "three days and three nights" as an idiomatic, linguistic device to draw a simile between Himself and Jonah. If we study the other Gospel version of this passage, look at all the other instances where Jesus speaks prophetically of His Resurrection, and look at the actual biblical accounts of Jesus' Resurrection, we see, in context, a very clear picture of Jesus' literal conception of His Resurrection, and by contrast, His more generally symbolic use of Jonah in Matthew 12:39 to point to it. He never intended the "three nights" in this scripture to be taken literally. The preponderance of other surrounding scriptural evidence, however, more than shows that He did intend us to believe that the Resurrection itself was to be taken literally.

Let us look, for example, at Luke's version of the same passage in Luke 11:30;


"For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites so also will the Son of Man be to this generation."


He uses Jonah as a general comparative symbol for His own Resurrection without any mention of numbers of nights. The point of the comparison was that Jonah came as a sign from God by which the Ninevites might repent. They did. Then Jesus says that His Resurrection was likewise to be a sign to "this generation" who would not repent. Luke 11:32;


"The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here."


In this context we can see that Mr. Sears draws a false conclusion out of Christ's reference to Jonah. Jesus wasn't speaking generally because the Resurrection was symbolic, but because His comparison of Jonah with Himself was. But the association of His mentioning the Resurrection in Matthew's version of the account shows clearly that belief in Jesus' Resurrection was to be a critical aspect of the repentance He was speaking of.

In this account from Scripture then, Jesus mentions the days and nights in Matthew's Gospel only, not in Luke's Gospel, and the whole account is unrepresented in the Gospels of Mark and John. We begin to see more clearly how Sears has taken one genuinely symbolic passage out of context of Scripture and distorted its intended meaning. It also shows us why it is important to have more than one Gospel account to study.

But there are many other passages where Christ speaks prophetically of His Resurrection in terms of how long it would be between the time He died, and the time He rose. In Matthew 20:19 Jesus says,

"On the third day He will be raised to life."

At Mark 10:34 Jesus says,

"Three days later He will rise."

At Luke 9:22 Jesus says,

"...and on the third day be raised to life."

In Luke 18:33 Christ tells us,

"On the third day He will rise again."

 

All Gospel accounts, except the reference to Jonah in Matthew 12:39, are in literal agreement with one another on numbers of "days".

But let us continue to see this Scripture within an even broader biblical context. As we see that all accounts of Jesus predicting the timetable of His Resurrection, except Matthew 12:39, are in clear literal agreement (He was to rise on the third day), let us study the Gospel account of His Resurrection to see how the description of the actual event guides our reasoning.

Jesus was buried before dark on the day of preparation for the Sabbath (Mark 15:42). This was the first day since the Jews counted days from dusk to dusk. His body remained in the tomb from dusk ending that day to dusk of the following day. This was day two. He rose on the morning of the first day of the week (Mark 28:1). This was the third day. One finds that all Gospel accounts of the Resurrection agree with this scenario. One finds too that all prophecies about how long Christ would remain in the tomb are also in literal agreement with the gospel accounts of His Resurrection except the figurative reference to Jonah in Matthew 12:39. By observing the accounts of the Resurrection we see, in fact, that it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been literally in the tomb a third night. Seeing the first day as the day of the crucifixion, we must notice that He missed the first "literal" night in the tomb. For He died late in that day long after the preceding evening that would have marked the first literal night. (remember, the idiomatic phrase "a day and a night" need not require a literal "night" but can merely refer to any part of a day). Jesus would then have had to have risen on the morning of the fourth day if He was going to tack on another literal night at the end to make up for the one He missed at the beginning of the first day. This would obviously make all of the many other predictions He made wrong, as well as the accounts of the actual event which agree with them. These other predictions were predictions relating directly to the Resurrection and not couched in symbolic reference as the Jonah account is. The accounts of the Resurrection are clearly definitive narratives of the chronological order of events in time. We can clearly see, then, that His reference to Jonah and the "three days and three nights" was a general comparison and not a literal prediction. It alone stands in literal, but not idiomatic or symbolic, disagreement with virtually every other scriptural reference on the subject. When we see that it also stands alone as the only passage whose mention of the Resurrection timetable is given in terms of a symbolic comparison with an Old Testament personage, we can wisely conclude that Jesus did in fact use it as an idiomatic device. He never intended it to be picked apart literally to suggest that through some vague inaccuracy we should see that He thought of His Resurrection as only being symbolic. If Sear's interpretation of Matthew 12:39 is evidence that Jesus was trying to tell us that it was all symbolic, it is singular and weak, and in light of all of the rest of what Jesus said in all four Gospels makes Christ either the world's worst communicator of intention or purposefully deceptive. He was certainly neither one.

It is interesting to note that in this instance Sears uses the opposite reasoning to make the Baha'i point as he normally would. In other instances he tells us that we are being too literal minded and need to think symbolically. But now, when there is an obvious symbolic reference that contradicts, in literal interpretation, all the surrounding scriptural evidence, he uses it, out of context, as a saying whose presumed literal inaccuracy discredits the legitimacy of Christ's Resurrection.


Baha'i Bible "error":


Did you know that Christmas is not the birthday of the Messiah? In fact, Christmas was practiced hundreds of years before the Messiah was even born, by pagan religions. So why does most of the Christian world celebrate this holiday today?


Christian response

The answer seems simple and righteous enough?? Because they wish to commemorate the birth of Him who saved them! What logic can possibly jump to the false conclusion that just because there were ancient pagan festivities associated with the holiday season, that it becomes evil to celebrate Christ's birth in commemoration, whether the actual date is accurate or not? In fact, much like Halloween and All Saint's day, AMEN that if there is no factual, historical holy celebration to compete with a pagan one, we shall make a day of holy celebration to stand beside it, and replace it to the greatest of degrees possible, and proclaim the Lord! Christmas need not be Christ's factual birth date to make the idea of celebrating his birth a day of joy and thanks; a holy day indeed unto the Lord. The more power in the victory if the day that was a pagan holiday now bears His name instead and proclaims His truth in its place. God would have all pagan holidays so replaced!


Baha'i Bible "error":


"Lord" and "God" are not names of the Creator. In fact, these titles are used to refer to demons in the scriptures including Satan. So by what name does one call upon our Creator, and be absolutely sure that they are calling on Him alone?"


Christian Response

Evidently the presenter feels that, even if we are correct in the Spirit of whom we pray to, if we don't get His name right, we just won't make it to the Kingdom! I think we can see that this is unreasonable in the extreme! Jesus Himself claims His name in the Gospel, "Before Abraham was, I AM." That had to be good enough for Moses at the burning bush. It had to be good enough for the Pharisees who confronted Jesus, and it's good enough for me. What possible difference could it make to God if a translational name is used if the true Spirit of Who is called upon is called upon in truth and honor? I am certain that God is not such a legalistic nit-picker, else we are all doomed! If we must choose a name for God, let us choose the one God gave to Moses at the burning bush; I AM.

BUT WAIT! That's an English translation! So we will have to wait until the Judgment Day Resurrection to find out the Creator's true name because we have no power to raise from the dead those who spoke the exact colloquial dialect it was originally spoken in in Old Testament times so that we cannot hope to ever really know what to call Him! My point illustrates the absurdity of such false legalism.

This argument is presented to try to show that literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong. That the Bible's words are somehow unreliable unless "quickened" by a manifestation like Baha'u'llah who alone can "unseal" its secret meaning. But such harsh, literal, legalistic, outlook is itself wrong. Such an unthinkingly rigid fundamentalist outlook helps make the genuine, reasoned and compassionate Christian perspective more plausible, not less. Arguments like this are the food of cults like Jehovah's Witness and Mormonism, not traditional historic Christianity. My comment would be that this line of thought shows indeed that there is a legalistic kind of fundamentalism out there that is False. It doesn't show the unreliability of Scripture however. It just shows the unreliability of false doctrinal interpretations, and how the believer can, on his own, uncover them.


Baha'i Bible "error":


Throughout history, there have been three major sources to which Christians have looked for their authority: the Church, the Bible and the Inner Light. Fundamentalists assert that the Bible and only the Bible can be rightfully considered to be our ultimate authority in all matters. The ultimate authority of the Bible for belief is so important that fundamentalists will accuse those who believe in Christ, but not the ultimate authority of the Bible, of heresy. Believing in the ultimate authority of the Bible necessarily includes the belief that the Bible contains no errors of any kind. Since there is no higher court of appeal by which we might recognize a Bible error, no errors may be found. That is, if anyone were to exhibit what he claimed to be an error in the Bible, he is at the same time making use of some higher authority, which he deems competent to judge the accuracy of the Bible. This higher authority would then be ultimate by comparison with the Bible. This is true even in those cases in which the alleged Bible error involves a simple contradiction of fact between two passages. Since it is reason which tells us that two contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time, to allege that the Bible contains an error based on internal contradiction is in fact to make reason the ultimate authority.

Believing in the ultimate authority of the Bible must also necessarily put a stop to the historical critical method. The historical method is to recognize both that we have primary sources of knowledge about the past, and also that these primary sources may contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. These sources may be biased by propagandistic purposes of their authors. Since our primary sources about the past may contain errors, we must weigh the evidence for and against certain possibilities. For any given statement, we consider its inherent reasonableness, its consistency with other information, and the honesty and competency of its source. (Whether a source is competent is whether the source was in a position to report accurately what he reports. Is he an eyewitness or is he reporting hearsay or tradition? If he is reporting tradition, how accurately was the tradition transmitted?) Before crediting a source, we consider how reliable he has been in those cases where we can check his statements against what we already know to be true. Now, once someone "by faith" takes the Bible to be his final and ultimate authority, no higher authority is able to demonstrate Bible errors or even bias. As a result, there is no place for the historical critical method to be applied to the Bible.

Now, what fundamentalists do not seem to realize is that there is another possible, legitimate "ultimate authority:" the Inner Light. By the Inner Light I mean that inner sense of truth and right that God gives to all men. As John 1:9 puts it, "The True Light gives light to everyone." This inner light begins in our sense of reason and justice, but is not limited to this. The inner light gives men an awareness of God; in fact, for Christians, the inner light is also called the witness or testimony of the Holy Spirit. When Peter confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus answers that it was not human testimony that revealed this to Peter, but the Heavenly Father who revealed it, Mt. 16:17. Paul likewise says, "No man can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit," I Cor. 12:3. John 15:26 states that the Spirit will bear witness to Jesus. Paul says that the Spirit bears witness to us that we are the children of God, Romans 8:16. He asks that those who claim to be prophets or inspired recognize his instructions on spiritual gifts to be the command from the Lord, I Cor. 14:37, presumably on the basis that the Spirit will so witness. John 16:13 promises that this Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.

The term Inner Light comes in fact from the words of Jesus Himself. When the crowds are demanding a sign, he says that no sign will be given, "except that of Jonah." He continues with the parable of the lamp and the words, "Consider whether the light that is within you is darkness," Luke 11:35. Why did Jesus tell this parable? Apparently, He means that just as men do not light a lamp for no reason, God has not placed a light within us expecting us to cover it or ignore it. God expects us to use the light he has placed within us to see. However, that light may be darkness to us, if we become spiritually blind by refusing to believing it. So, to the question, "How may we know that the work of Jesus is of God?" His answer is, "Consult the Inner Light."

When the early Greek philosophers said, "Two contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time," they appealed to no Bible verse, but to that sense of truth all men possess. Now, most Christians would agree that this recognition by the Greeks was the work of the Inner Light. (If this is not the work of the Inner Light, was it then Satan's work?) Thus, Christians begin to see and admit that there is a source of truth independent of the Bible. The question which now arises is, "What is the relationship between the Inner Light and the Bible?" Investigation will show, in fact, that only the Inner Light can be our ultimate authority, with the result that we may use the Inner Light to judge the Bible itself.

Why must the Inner Light be our ultimate authority? Consider the question, put to a Christian, "Why do you believe the Bible to be the word of God?" If Catholic, he may reply, because the Church tells me so. If fundamentalist, he may instead reply, because it claims to be, that fulfilled prophecies demonstrate it is inspired, or that the miracles done by Jesus and His resurrection are warrant for believing the Bible to be God's word. Are these reasons enough? The Koran also claims to be the word of God, and so the thinking Christian must make some distinction between books which claim inspiration. No book is judged inspired simply because it claims to be. Whether the Bible manifests fulfilled prophecies is subject to debate. Most of the prophecies alleged to be fulfilled are of the life of Christ, and those who doubt that Jesus was the Messiah doubt that the prophecies were in fact fulfilled. That Jesus did miracles or rose from the dead is what the Bible itself says; one cannot assume what the Bible says to be true in one's effort to prove it true. Even in those cases in which converts have personally witnessed Christian miracles, the question can be asked, "Why do you believe these miracles are of God and not of some other source or power, or some form of trickery?" When the fundamentalist answers, "Because nothing other than God's work is a reasonable explanation for the occurrence of this miracle," he has appealed to reason and the inner light as his highest, final authority. Thus, one must adopt the insight of John Calvin: Christians believe the Bible to be God's word because of the inner witness of the Spirit. The rational or experiential arguments which can be put forward for Christ and the Bible are in fact validated by one's own Inner Light; were it not so, we would be unbelievers.

Likewise, we may ask the Catholic, "Why then do you believe the Church to be the Church of God and truthful?" He will most probably answer that the Bible tells him to expect that God has established a Church with authority to teach rightly. However, to use what the Bible might say about the Church, and to use what the Church says about the Bible to establish the truth of the Bible, is again to argue in a circle. The only way out of this circular reasoning is to acknowledge that God has given men an inner sense of truth, which some believe and others do not.

Recognizing the ultimacy of the inner light has great implications for our study of the Bible. If the Inner Light, including reason, is our ultimate authority, and can operate independently of the Bible, we are now in a position to legitimately find a Bible error, if there be such, and to use the historical critical method. Consider the time of the cursing of the fig tree. According to Mark 11, Jesus curses the fig tree on the morning of the day that he enters the temple to cleanse it. According to Matthew 21, Jesus curses the fig tree on the morning of the next day after cleansing the temple. Now, the fundamentalist answer is to make one or the other of these passages mean something other than what it says, so that the cursing of the fig tree only occurs once, at the same time in both accounts. Or, he answers, either Mark or Matthew did not intend to tell us the time of the cursing of the fig tree. In either case, he distorts the plain meaning of the text in such a way as to make both accounts "true." If, however, the Inner Light is our ultimate authority, we can comfortably say, Matthew or Mark erred, as is proven by the testimony of the other. In many other cases, e.g., the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2, or the genealogies of Jesus in Mt. and Luke, the fundamentalist distorts the text's plain meaning in order to make it "true." He betrays the Inner Light in his misguided effort to follow it.

Now a fundamentalist may well suggest that the Inner Light, reason or the testimony of the Spirit function only to bring one to faith in Christ and the Bible; after this, to use reason, the inner light or the witness of the Spirit to critique the Bible is a misuse of their authority. Yet, he has no good reason why this should be so. Reason and the Inner Light do not erect a boundary stone, saying, "Beyond this we will not go. Do not ask us if the Bible contains errors; we cannot say." Nor does the Bible claim for itself that it contains no errors; if it did, reason would tell us that claim was false. The same inner light which tells a man to trust Christ also tells him to apply reason to Bible contradictions and problems. If no on has light enough to say that Mark or Matthew errs about the fig tree, where the facts are clear, then how could anyone have enough light to make a judgment for or against Christ, where the debate is clouded by dozens of additional issues?

Now, consider the discussion of Linnemann, Patterson and Johnson. Linnemann and Johnson basically say, "You can believe the truth as the Bible presents it, or what you believe is damnable error." Patterson replies, "But sometimes we have a choice between truth and truth," as if there could be two different truths about the same thing. If in fact the Inner Light is our ultimate authority, the truth is the Bible as interpreted, corrected and supplemented by the Inner Light. The truth is the Bible as understood by reason and the Spirit, subjected to and corrected by the historical critical method and complemented by the continuing work of the Holy Spirit to bring us all into all truth.


Christian response

The main thrust of this line of thought seemed to be to argue human wisdom (the presenter's definition of inner light) over inspiration (the Bible's attributing "inner light" as God's Spirit at work within the believer) as a final authority in seeking truth. The term for empirical proof was "historical method" as opposed to what was characterized in the Bible believing Christian as a naive lack of intelligence (Scripture calls this the "power of the cross" which is "foolishness" to the wisdom of man). In other words, faith based on something other than scholarly proofs or intellectual logical understanding is portrayed as foolish and branded as a false "final" authority. Notice that the defining of terms in the Baha'i presenter's essay blurs critical distinctions that must be clearly spelled out. The presenter speaks of the "inner light" as the ultimate authority, not the Bible itself. But he defines and describes just what that "inner light" is very differently from the Bible's parralel definition of what "inner light" is. The Bible also appeals to an "inner light" within us as the ultimate authority, not the ink and paper of the Biblical text itself. But Scripture defines that "inner light" as God's very Spirit, not human intellectual reason. There is a vast difference in the two definitions of "inner light".

The first significant comment was as follows;

"Fundamentalists assert that the Bible and only the Bible can be rightfully considered to be our ultimate authority in all matters. The ultimate authority of the Bible for belief is so important that fundamentalists will accuse those who believe in Christ, but not the ultimate authority of the Bible, of heresy."

First of all, let's remember that the kind of extremist, rigid and unthinkingly literalistic "fundamentalism" with which this argument tries to define "Bible believing" Christianity is false. The argument's point about "fundamentalists" who "accuse those who believe in Christ" of "heresy" while they themselves hold to a legalistically false interpretation of Scripture has nothing to do with legitimate mainstream Christian belief.

Another observation is in the fact that besides misdefining legitimate Christian belief on the one hand, the argument has failed to define at all just what is meant by, "those who believe in Christ" on the other. It has mentioned no specifics concerning these so called believers in "Christ" that this legalistic straw man "Christian" would be persecuting. As we know that Jesus continually warned us to be wary of false "christs" (impostors come in the guise of Jesus), it is an error to make such a general statement without telling us what is meant when speaking of "those who believe in Christ". This is especially true when we consider the redefined, symbolized Christ of Baha'i theology. There are some who say they believe in a Christ that is not the true Jesus of Scripture. There are some who believe in a false Christ that Jesus himself prophetically condemns as fake.

Actually, the statement from the presenter's argument just quoted is a contradictory impossibility for the Christian lead by the TRUE inner Spirit when reading Scripture. One who believes in the ultimate authority of Scripture cannot accuse the true Christ believer of heresy. In truth, we know that Jesus IS the Word, made flesh. If we are in agreement that the Bible is what is meant by the "Word of God" in that statement, then we see that one who believes in its intended message, will by association believe in Him. They are essentially the same.That is, the TRUE Christ is portrayed by the TRUE INTENTION of Scripture which gives us information by which we may know the false impostor which that very Word assures us will come. We see that the radical extreme fundamentalist label attributed to Christian believers by Baha'is is largely wrong. And we discover that even pointing out the falsehood in such extremism still takes nothing away from the very legitimate warnings of Jesus and the Apostles against those who preach other Christs and other Gospels (which are really no gospel at all ). Paul, for example, tells us in Galatians 1:6, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different Gospel- which is really no Gospel. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the Gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from Heaven should preach a Gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned. As we have already said, so now I say again. If anybody is preaching a Gospel other than what you accepted let him be eternally condemned." Thus, without defining the "Christ" he speaks of, the critical statement in this argument against its legalistic straw man Bible believer is as meaningless as the false straw man itself.

In fact, the Bible IS the ultimate authority when read in the TRUE inner light. Jesus IS the ultimate authority when the Bible is read in the TRUE Inner Light. The TRUE Inner light Himself (the Spirit) IS the ultimate authority when the Bible is read in the TRUE Inner light. The Father IS the ultimate authority when the Bible is read in the TRUE Inner Light. (I will continue to emphasize "TRUE" because, again, defining terms seems to be a problem in this discussion) How can all these statements be true? Because the TRUE "inner light" is NOT mankind's intellectual logic, it is the indwelling Spirit of God. The Son, Spirit, Father, and Word are in spiritual unity. One cannot believe in a true Christ and not believe the Bible.

Now if I am going to say that the Baha'i presenter has not defined the inner light properly, then I need to see what he or she does say it is, and then define it myself (or more properly let Scripture define it). Let's look at some of what is characterized as "inner light" in the Baha'i argument and compare it with what Jesus and the Apostles say about that light. From the Baha'i presenter's argument we read;

"This inner light begins in our sense of reason and justice, but is not limited to this. The inner light gives men an awareness of God; in fact, for Christians, the inner light is also called the witness or testimony of the Holy Spirit."

Once again however, notice that it does not define what is meant by "Holy Spirit". In fact, the entire line of argument never presents whatever it is that the Holy Spirit is supposed to do that it says goes beyond "our sense of reason and justice". All examples of the "inner light" in the Baha'i argument rest on models that only represent man's intellect. For example we read,


"When the early Greek philosophers said, Two contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time, they appealed to no Bible verse, but to that sense of truth all men possess. Now, most Christians would agree that this recognition by the Greeks was the work of the Inner Light."

But this is not a true statement about what Christians would agree defines God's "inner light", as it does not represent the concept of the indwelling of God's Spirit as portrayed and described in Scripture. Though, as we will see, logic can be an important tool, we also notice that one of the most significant representatives of Christianity taught that such intellectual logic as an "ultimate authority" was false. Paul tells us in 1Corinthians 1:17,

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong...

...My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power."


The first thing we notice is that Paul uses the Greek's with their intellectual logic, as an example of what specifically does not represent the "inner light" of God's Spirit. This entire passage goes out of its way to impress upon the reader that the conception of the inner light presented by the Baha'i adherent's argument, shown by the example of Greek philosophers, is wrong. In fact, as Baha'i theology accuses the Bible believing Christian of a naively foolish outlook, even so, Paul tells the Christian that the wisdom of God's Spirit will necessarily seem so to the wisdom of the world.

"Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

If our faith is to be in "God's power" and not "the wisdom of the world", then what logic really tells us is that there is no conceivable way that human intellect can be our "final authority". It must be God's very indwelling Spirit or nothing at all. Beyond the point of what seems "foolish" to logic, we must have faith that God's power is not limited by that logic.

The Baha'i presenter's argument tells us,


"Thus, Christians begin to see and admit that there is a source of truth independent of the Bible."


But logic itself once again tells us that, as Jesus is "the Word made flesh", that His truth cannot be independent of itself. To say that Jesus' truth can be independent from the Bible is a contradiction in terms. What IS independent of the Word, as a possible "final authority", is the wisdom of the world, mankind's intellectual, logical mind, divorced from the True "inner light" of God's Spirit. Paul tells us definitively that it is a false final authority and, as we have seen, logic itself bears this out. If logic teaches anything, it is that we must reach beyond it to find God.

The Baha'i presenter says,

"Believing in the ultimate authority of the Bible necessarily includes the belief that the Bible contains no errors of any kind."


This is another false assumption. In the first place, the type of "error" he might be speaking of is significant and not to be so easily generalized as is assumed. Translational errors in the King James Bible, for instance, have been of great service to the truth in revealing false prophets who unwittingly used them as in what they claimed was new normative revelation. Errors of detail or literary exaggeration used as an idiomatic, linguistic device can be grasped as "error" by those who wish to demean Scripture's inerrancy. But in truth, we see that such false attempts are revealed in the fact that such occurrences NEVER adversely affect the message or true meaning intended by the passages in question. Error is not error. You have to specify, read in context, and use wisdom. But, as Scripture says, not just human wisdom.

Obviously, human intelligence is an important factor in recognizing errors and their significance (or lack of it), or recognizing idiomatic writing style. The problem is that when intellectual logic becomes the "final authority", our concept of God then becomes limited by it, and the reality of His omnipotent ability beyond it grossly underestimated. When lead by any TRUE "inner light" of spiritual discernment, our intellectual intelligence observes that God's ability is unlimited as opposed our obviously greatly limited ability, and leads reason to the natural conclusion that "historical method" (man's intellectual, academic ability) can never, in truth, really approach Him as any kind of accurate "final authority." When we do not heed this we "make the Potter like the clay", as Isaiah said, limiting what can be true about an omnipotent God within our own limited intellectual ability to understand. Let the reader understand clearly, I never said that intellectual reason should be caste out as a false basis for discovering truth. I prioritized. There's a difference. One who holds the viewpoint of the Baha'i argument just presented might ask me,


"Is it the wisdom of the world to reject belief in two contradictory things at the same time, or is it simply common sense, and part of the Light which Christ gives to all men?"


It is the wisdom of the world. Nothing else is needed to make such an observation. For such an observation it is good and adequate. But, as Paul reveals, it is utterly inadequate for accepting the "message of the cross". Logic and intellectual reason can never be a "final authority" where the kind of spiritual faith Scripture calls for is concerned. It's the wrong tool, like trying to saw down a tree with a hammer. (and even that is a poor analogy since, with persistence, you might eventually mash down a tree with the wrong tool. But you will NEVER be able to come to accept the risen Messiah through intellectual logic). Just how would one's intellectual reason prove (or disprove) the "power of the cross"?

Does not logic itself reveal its own inadequacy in approaching an omnipotent God? We know that every question Science answers, only raises a thousand more even more perplexing ones. This has always been so. And it creates in us an ever more unquenchable thirst to discover more. This is good. But the greater potential good we should discover, even if only by inductive reason, is the ever more greatly revealed depth of the inadequacy of intellectual solutions. We should, at some point, be wise and logical enough to see that what God really allows us to progressively discover through reason and observation is the impossibility of intellect as a final authority. We answer one question. One thousand tougher ones become revealed. The more we learn by reasoned logic, the more we discover, exponentially, its utter ultimate inadequacy. We can see that all intellectual striving can ever do is reveal ever deeper levels of its own inadequacy to really move us toward any final, complete understanding. We must approach God another way. Logic, for the person seeking God, must eventually come to a jumping off point- a point of grave decision. A point at which the individual must either cling to logic, or make a leap of faith beyond it, not by degree, but an utter break. This is Paul's message. It is not that the Greeks were wrong for honoring logic, but their unwillingness to see beyond it that was. Logic, in and of itself, is not contrary to Scripture. Neither Paul nor I said it was. What he did say was that it can never provide for us the means of faith in inspiration from a God far bigger than man's intellectual ability. Logic or intellectual reason, and the true "Inner Light" of God's Spirit promised by Christ are not the same thing. Thus, to use a worldly example, Galileo's ideas about the world were wonderful for discovering greater accuracies about God's creation, imperfect though they were, while they were at the same time quite insufficient for approaching an understanding of the One who created it.

But while it is simple logic to recognize the truth of this, it still leaves us wondering just where our final authority is? If misinterpretation or trivial technical error is recognized as something to be dealt with and needy of intelligent analysis, and yet intellectual ability is also recognized as an insufficient tool with which to approach God in His omnipotence, then where do we look for "final authority"? As we read Scripture we begin to realize that the answer to this question is in the truth that God's very Spirit (the Counselor of Christ's promise) is a separate means of knowing from intellectual logic. Intellectual knowledge, we discover, becomes the legalistic falsehood of the very well educated, but uninspired Pharisee without it. God tells us that He will dwell within us by His Spirit and give us the ability to have a right faith in things we can never hope to intellectually understand in the wisdom of the world.

A major thing to keep in mind is that it is not through some sense of legalistic, fundamentalist interpretation that these things are believed by the Christian. This theme, so clearly preached, is not some trivial "mistake" of detail or idiomatic exaggeration. It is the clear and intentional message of Scripture specifically telling us that worldly wisdom cannot be our final authority and that such worldly wisdom will scoff at the Bible believer whose faith rests in God's power instead of its "wisdom", as if he were a fool. Scripture has already told us ahead of time to expect (and reject) the false line of argument presented in this Baha'i argument as "final authority".

Another mistaken assumption lies in the following quote.


"Believing in the ultimate authority of the Bible must also necessarily put a stop to the historical critical method. The historical method is to recognize both that we have primary sources of knowledge about the past, and also that these primary sources may contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. These sources may be biased by propagandistic purposes of their authors. Since our primary sources about the past may contain errors, we must weigh the evidence for and against certain possibilities...

... Now, once someone by faith takes the Bible to be his final and ultimate authority, no higher authority is able to demonstrate Bible errors or even bias. As a result, there is no place for the historical critical method to be applied to the Bible."

First of all, let us remember that this argument's definition of "the ultimate authority of the Bible" is based upon a legalistic, fundamentalist straw man that may be easy to knock down, but doesn't represent the legitimate Christian perspective it is trying to disprove the legitimacy of. The legitimate Christian perspective can be seen in either volume of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict, which, through its exhaustive use of scholarly "historic method" proves the Bible to be the single most verifiable, authentic, reliable ancient document in human history. As evidenced by this Christian work, the Bible has more primary sources, period manuscript copies, and verifying secondary sources, than any other document from antiquity, including those Greek philosophers used as examples in the Baha'i argument we are considering. McDowell observes that,

"There are more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the thirteenth century."

But within the Scriptures too we see that the plea of the Apostles to the early Church was that people accept the truth of the incredible story they had to tell on the basis that they themselves had been "living witnesses" who had not "invented clever stories" but were recounting the events they had seen FIRSTHAND. Let's not lose sight of the difference in what might be seen as Bible "errors" and some theory of dishonest conspiracy on the part of the New Testament authors. The former has points to be legitimately considered and understood. The latter is the speculative, unsupported, bias of propaganda with an ulterior motive, demeaning to any usefulness "historical method" might offer where the Bible is concerned. If we question the Apostle's honesty or competency in portraying the truth of what they witnessed, then nothing we can know of Jesus would be trustworthy. For the historic story of His life is only told in this one, incredibly verifiable and reliable historic document, the Bible. In fact, if the Apostles is the erroneous account of deluded men or worse still, liars, then Jesus' own inspiration as an enlightened messenger of God would be more than suspect. For surely one so "enlightened" would not utterly leave the chronicle of His mission in the hands of dishonest or misguided men (one's He Himself had hand picked). This, if it is a direction the Baha'i argument would go in, would contradict the Baha'i concession that the Bible is, in fact, an inspired Word of God and that Jesus was a "manifestation".

Also let us observe that "apocryphal" works have either been discriminatingly limited (as in the case of the Catholic Bible which includes 11 additional books as deutero-canonical) or eliminated altogether in the canon of Scripture by the very validating tests of authenticity and validity that the Baha'i argument defines as "historic method". Significantly, there is unanimous agreement across the breadth of Christianity in acceptance of the 66 "proto-canonical" books of the Bible. Historic method has found its proper place in Christian theology despite the false Baha'i over generalization of Christians as being naive, unthinking fundamentalists. Scholarship is alive and well within Christianity. We do not discard "historic method" in our outlook, we simply never allow its limitations to become a "final" authority in the place of God's Spirit. In terms of the Bible's "honesty and competency of its source", it claims both measures internally, and "historic method" proves them externally. (again, see Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, vol. 1 and 2).

Another point that must be conceded by the intellectual skeptic is that if he only takes seriously what "historic method" can verify and logic can understand, he stands altogether at odds with the spiritual concepts of faith and inspiration. Since these intellectually unverifiable attributes are regarded as essential to proper religious belief we must wonder how this Baha'i argument would "prove" these most valuable aspects of spirituality with its "ultimate authority" of "historic method"? How can prophets have prophesied the future? How, if they do, can manifestations have "all power" as Abdul Baha claims? How could Baha'u'llah be ready to perform "any miracle'' on command of his detractors as he was said to have been prepared to do? How could the possibility of ANY miraculous event be accepted if logic and "historic method" were our "final authority". And yet even in its symbolic distortion of key miracles in Scripture, Baha'i religion concedes the reality of the miraculous (in as far as it does not interfere with Baha'i presuppositions). In scholarly realms that only deal with the tangible such areas as presumed inspiration or faith carry NO weight and so, once again, we can see that at some point it is reasonable (inevitable) to recognize that "historical method" must, by its very nature, fall short in terms of spiritual matters where faith takes up. Scholars who depend on it for their "ultimate authority" are just as much blind "fundamentalists" in their intellectually based worldly standard for belief as the most radical religious extremist. There are places we must be brave enough to go in our search for spiritual truth where historic method cannot go, and doesn't even want to.

We see that this Baha'i presenter's argument against Bible belief is stuck at the threshold of intellectual materialism and spiritual based faith when it says,

"That Jesus did miracles or rose from the dead is what the Bible itself says; one cannot assume what the Bible says to be true in one's effort to prove it true."

The argument falsely assumes that God expects us to be able to "prove" it true. But the resurrected Jesus, as he confronted the awe stricken "doubting" Thomas who was bothered by the same kind of skepticism, told him, "You have believed because you have seen. Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe." If "historic method" and intellectual "proofs" are to provide our ultimate authority, then Christ's words are the babblings of a lunatic. But the Christian will lay his faith wisely on the "foolishness" of God that is so infinitely wiser than the wisdom of man which would limit God's power to man's puny intellect. If the Baha'i is content to live within the narrow world of materialistic intellect and logic that Scripture calls "the wisdom of the world", this Baha'i argument will sound good. If we wish to seek God, we'll have to go beyond that. For indeed there is an impassable void between the intellectual vision of "inner light" in this Baha'i argument and God's concept of the indwelling of His Spirit as that "inner light".

It may simply end up that those who insist upon following the line of thought presented in this Baha'i adherent's argument will be unable to cross the threshold beyond worldly intellectual proof to any kind of deeper spiritual faith. That is a personal quest.

But where the current Baha'i/ Christian debate at hand is concerned, this whole theme is irrelevant. The blind dismissal of my observation of fatal errors in Baha'i theology has, often as not, been responded to by an attempt to mislabel the legitimate Scripture based Christian perspective that is opposed to Baha'i theology in terms of blindly fanatic fundamentalist. In fact, Scripture based Christian apologetics is quite reasonable and logical in its line of argumentation. Using such an apologetic, I have purposefully avoided any such controversy in my arguments as would try to "prove" (as a radical fundamentalist might) things that must be ultimately left up to personal faith, not empirical proof.

My evaluation of Baha'i religion has fallen into three categories, none of which are subject to this arguments criticisms, even if they were valid. 1) That one can look at Baha'i doctrine and discover that it is rife with internal doctrinal contradictions in major areas of belief. 2) That Baha'i theology attempts to commonize a vast array of other religions that, amongst themselves, have mutually contradictory beliefs. (the doctrine of the nature of God, for example). And last, 3) That Baha'i religion attempts to redefine Scripture away from the obvious and honest intention of its authors which is factual falsehood. (With respect to "historic method" It is certainly false in any scholarly sense to do this). My line of argument has used proper exegesis, logic and reasonable explanation (led I feel by God's spiritual guidance as my "final authority").

It should also be kept in mind that the controversy at hand in terms of my being a "fundamentalist" Christian has not been over trivial details such as exactly when Christ withered a fig tree. Such possible "errors" as that trivialize and indeed become the fuel for pointless, legalistic arguments. The controversy here, with respect to Baha'i theology, has centered on the abandoning of major, universal themes of biblical truth that drive the whole epic of Holy Scripture. One clear example is seen in the debate concerning the sinful basis of human nature. Baha'i theology rests on the sandy foundation of a humanity whose nature is a neutral factor. It is thereby blind to the prime directive of Christ's Mission as Messiah. Without belief in this fundamental spiritual truth, there is no way to have a proper interpretation of the message of Scripture. The "Messiah" becomes a "teacher" and the "New Covenant" becomes a meaningless and impotent ritual only applicable to a bygone "primitive" dispensation. Man's universal need for Salvation due to his universally sinful nature gets pushed under the carpet of spiritual unbelief.

Rest your hopes on "historic method" if you must. But if we are going to have the integrity of a scholar, let's at least agree to disagree with the honest intention of the writers of this extremely reliable, verifiable document, the Bible. Of course, where Baha'i religion is concerned, if we do that, we lose credibility for a host of Baha'i doctrines that go against the intent of the New Testament authors (and thus must be "symbolized" away lest they reveal the invalidity of a religion that proclaims the world's religions as fundamentally saying the same thing).

One representing this Baha'i line of argument might take exception to my using Josh McDowell's work as evidence of the Bible's validity and as an example of the vitality of "Historic method" in Christian theology. It has been argued that the reliability of transmission of the scriptural text is not necessarily the same thing as its inherent accuracy when it was originally written. Of course, once again, this is an argument that a Baha'i may dare not make since he or she is bound by the Baha'i teachings to consider the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Baha'is may argue that that inspired work is misinterpreted but they have no legitimate basis for criticizing the legitimacy of it's very existence. In any event. McDowell has specifically not tried to "prove" the accuracy of the original manuscripts of Scripture as being God's Word by way of scholarly proofs. Indeed he has only proven that what we have today is an accurate transmission of original documents. Whether or not it is God's Holy Word comes on Faith. For example, on page 39 of vol. one of Evidence that Demands a Verdict (A chapter dealing directly with the Bible's historic reliability), he says, "What we are establishing here is the historic reliability of the Scripture, not its inspiration." As I stated before, validity of inspiration cannot be approached by "historic method". McDowell tells us that he realizes this and that it is not his goal to try to prove inspiration, only historic reliability. McDowell relays to the reader in this statement that he realizes he can not prove with "historic method" that Jesus Christ's dead corpse rose after three days. Nevertheless, aside from his scholarly competence, I'm sure that he believes it. He knows the intellectual, scholarly, tool he is using and he tells us what he will, and what he will not, try to do with it. His Christianity is not based on his scholarly work. On the contrary, his scholarly work is based on and rooted in his FAITH. McDowell proves the historic reliability of Scripture in a scholarly sense, fully realizing that WHAT it actually says can never be accepted on that basis.

In reality then, what I think has happened with this argument is what inevitably must happen for all unbelievers. The message itself is unacceptable and "historic method" has nothing to do with it. Despite Scripture's unquestionable reliability, Baha'i theology doubts the literal accuracy of what the Bible actually says "when it was originally written" . Baha'i religion doubts the message itself, not its historic validity, and thus feels compelled to symbolize it's true intentions away. God has provided that there will be no legitimate scholarly criticism of the reliability of Scripture as a valid and genuine document. However, when one reads WHAT it actually says, one must either accept its "accuracy" on faith, or reject it DESPITE its overwhelming historic reliability. God has thus made sure that His message would get through with clearly established reliability. But the message so reliably conveyed is too incredible to believe without spiritual faith beyond reason. Kind of miraculous don't you think? God has left no easy loophole for the scholarly skeptic, who, like everyone else can reject the message, but not its authenticity.


Baha'i Bible "error":

Christians note contradictions within the Baha'i writings, yet they don't recognize the same kinds of discrepancies in the Bible. For example, look at the Gospel stories of who were witnesses of Jesus' Resurrection.Then try to reconstruct exactly what happened after Jesus' Resurrection, and the people who saw him along with the order of the appearances. The details of these events don't agree. Thus we see that there are inconsistencies in the Bible too. The real problem, stems more from a Christian insistence on taking things too literally than anything else, both with the Baha'i holy writings, as well as their own.


Christian Response

But Baha'i religion isn't really trying to argue about who saw Jesus first after His Resurrection. It wants to say that He didn't at all. It doesn't really matter who the order of people were who saw Him ALIVE AFTER HIS DEATH. Isn't that missing the point and the clear intention of all four independent accounts of the story and 1Cor 15 that all agree independently that He died, was buried, and rose from the dead, with many witnesses who saw Him, spoke with Him, ate with Him, and even embraced Him? Regardless of trivially picking apart the insignificant details within the story that these God chosen men were trying to relay, the story that they are, in fact, obviously relaying (that Christ rose from the dead, literally, with hundreds of witnesses) is totally contrary to Baha'i doctrine. You see in this an example of the type of Bible "error" that strains out the gnat of conflicting trivial detail and fails to see the camel of significant and independently verifiable agreement. This line of argument wants to point out trivial errors in detail that, in fact, help authenticate independent Bible agreement of witnesses on the significant major points across all of the scriptural portrayals of Jesus' Resurrection. Those major points of agreement are totally at odds with Baha'i doctrine. The point needs to be emphatically stressed that legitimate Christian doctrine, which absolutely opposes Baha'i doctrine, is NOT based upon a blind need for absolute, fanatic and unbending literal Bible fundamentalism.

Where Baha'i religion is concerned let's once again remember that these kinds of trivial "errors" in detail ARE NOT the same thing as the major internal doctrinal contradictions within Baha'i theology. Just who saw Christ first after he LITERALLY rose from the dead obviously trivializes the main intended point that He rose. On the other hand, we have the Baha'i doctrine that says that mankind spiritually regresses, by principle, and in every age. This reveals a fundamental spiritual contradiction of doctrine when we can see a simultaneous principle that presumes to say that mankind has now "ascended" by some theory of spiritually progressive evolution, and is now "advanced" enough spiritually to receive Baha'u'llah's "advanced" revelation. What Baha'i apologists call "errors" and contradictions" in the Bible are like the cracks in the top of a hot loaf of bread just out of the oven. They may be called "flaws" but they present a "genuine" and more believable, more genuinely savory and authentic picture of the bread. The kinds of basic contradictions of foundational spiritual principle within Baha'i theology are, on the other hand, the warning smells of spoiled spiritual food.


Baha'i Bible "error"


In the synoptic Gospels Jesus is generally presented as speaking in short sayings. Even the so-called sermon on the mount appears to be a collection of short sayings about various subjects, all linked together by "Jesus", or the writer of Matthew. No single idea is developed more than a few verses. Now, in the gospel of John, we have many long monologues, or at times, dialogues.There are many other discrepancies between John and the synoptics. For example, in John, Jesus cleanses the temple at the beginning of his ministry; in the synoptics he does so near the very end. Does Jesus cleanse the temple twice?"


Christian response


The New Testament does not presume to be exhaustive of everything that Christ ever said during His mortal life on Earth and so one should fail to see the point in observing that some Bible authors expound on some of what Jesus said while others do not? Certainly there was even more that could have been drawn upon that Jesus said that none of the Gospels record. At the end of John's Gospel ( 21:25) John himself goes so far as to tell us that,

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

We obviously should also give stylistic license to different authors. If one writer expounds where another does not on what Jesus said, then we simply see why it is important to have all four Gospel versions. Where's the contradiction??? If Baha'i adherents observe differences in writing style of various NT authors and what they included of Christ's Words what point is made against Scripture's literal readability? But it is important to notice here that the Baha'i argument never mentions any of the substance of what Jesus said. It makes no spiritual point at all. The criticism is unconcerned with the intention and message Jesus was conveying. The observation is utterly devoid of any theological significance, which I think is a very spiritually significant observation concerning the argument's utter lack of validity.

Just how does a trivializing argument over just when Jesus cleansed the Temple affect the Spiritual message of the story? Or greater still, how does it affect the clear intent of Scripture in portraying truly major spiritual considerations like Christ's literal, messianic Resurrection from death, or the basis for man's sinful nature?

Laying such weight upon trivializing Bible "errors" comes as much from false legalism as the fanatic who tries to argue legalistic Bible fundamentalism. Neither perspective has anything to do with the spiritual inerrancy of Scripture.

Having said that, we must keep in mind that, 1) John's Gospel is not ordered by chronology and so it could well be the same incident. 2) John's Gospel mentions at least 3 Passovers (2:13, 23; 6:4; and 11:55: 12:1; 13:1) so there is no reason why Jesus wouldn't have visited the Temple several times. There is also no reason to suppose that He might not have been furious with the misuse of God's house more than once while there. Thus it is indeed also reasonable and quite plausible to imagine that He might have cleansed the Temple more than one time. Either is possible, and without any Bible "contradiction". The main point is that it is a trivializing point one way or the other.


Baha'i Bible "error"


At times the thoughts of the writer of the gospel become interwoven into the dialogue, placed as if they were from the mouth of one of the participants. For example, John 9:31 states, "We know that God does not hear sinners. He hears the righteous man who does His will." As presented, this comes from the mouth of a newly-healed formerly blind man, who, no doubt, was otherwise a theological novice.


Christian response


From what verse do we deduce the alleged "fact" that this newly healed, formerly blind man "no doubt, was otherwise a theological novice." No doubt it is a great presumption to superimpose very grave personal doubts upon Scripture by attaching cynical assumptions to the story. There is no basis in saying that the man was a "theological novice" or that he did not know Scripture. In fact, if his faith was so strong and his interest in Jesus so genuine that he would present himself to be healed, the far more reasonable presumption (supported by the Scripture) is that he was most likely a very devout man who knew Scripture well. What this argument reveals in its presumption is a predisposition against Scripture, not an unbiased observation.


Baha'i Bible "error"


John 17:3 states, "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." As written, this is part of the prayer from Jesus to the Father, and yet in normal speech, men do not refer to themselves by their own names.


Christian response


This line of argument says that " in normal speech, men do not refer to themselves by their own names" and yet all who have read Scripture must be aware of the overwhelming Biblical context that Jesus constantly emphasized throughout His ministry as the "Holy One" of Old Testament prophecy, the "Messiah". If He spoke of Himself in the third person to reaffirm His station as Messiah, this is in consistent keeping with that consistent Scriptural theme. He can be quoted as saying that he often did and said things for the overt purpose of demonstration and proclamation to those around Him. Even if a cynic thinks it odd and not "normal speech" it is at most an embarrassingly trivial point of opinion on his part, and certainly not a Bible error?


Baha'i Bible "error":


In the synoptics, Jesus tells several people whom he had healed not to tell others, and he tells Peter not to tell others that he was the Messiah, Mk 8:30. (He apparently did so, because, first, he did not want people attracted to him simply for healing, and second, he did not want the Jews to gather around him as an earthly king.) In John, the claim is made that Jesus is both God and Messiah, loudly and clearly, from almost the first. John 8:58 presents Jesus as saying, "Before Abraham was, I am." John 10:30 presents Jesus as claiming to be one with the Father. On both of these claims, the Jews attempt to stone Jesus, for claiming to be God. Further, John 9:22, 34 says that even during the life of Jesus, they were putting people out of the synagogue for confessing him as Messiah. What is the point of Peter is not telling that Jesus is the Messiah, when Jesus has previously, publicly claimed to be God to the Jews at Jerusalem?


Christian Response


It seems clear that in any fulfillment of prophecy timing is crucial. The timing of Christ's revealing of Himself as Messiah to the crowds was something He had to do according to His own timetable. Consideration of the varied audiences Jesus faced, and the very different stance he took depending upon just who He was addressing, is also a critical factor the Baha'i presenter has failed to consider. This argument against Scripture's efficacy as a literally rational text fails to realize that there is a vast difference in Jesus' arguments with the religious leaders who hated Him and His public relationship with the throngs of followers who were attracted to Him. His revealing His station and Mission amongst the Pharisees served to graphically reveal not only His true religion, but their false religion by contrast. Through those confrontations Scripture is given one of its most powerful descriptions of Jesus theology and doctrinal outlook. Their consistent official reaction to Christ's proclamation as Messiah was singular unlike the diverse reaction the crowds would have had. The revealing of Himself to those who were set against Him was not the same situation as that of the crowds of followers. The crowds were not only filled with potential true believers, but also those who were curious onlookers, anxious and desperate people seeking miraculous cures, and those watchful to see if Jesus would be the military leader they sought. They comprised a diverse group. Perhaps, with them, Jesus knew that He needed to wait until the time was just right before revealing the true and very different nature of His Messiahship so that all things could unfold according to God's plan.

At any rate it is easy to see that beyond this consideration, two other factors reveal that this alleged "error" is one he has created by way of a cynical predisposition. As stated before, John's Gospel is not ordered by chronology so there is no basis in comparing it with the synoptic Gospels with the automatic assumption that Christ had "previously" said something chronologically contradictory. This is especially true in the specific case he cites as one observes that the story of Peter's confession of the Christ is not even included in the Gospel of John. On both counts the argument against Scripture interjects cynical assumptions of chronology into the text. It presumes to create chronology that simply doesn't exist in Scripture. It ignores contrasting contexts in the passages cited (Pharisaic argument vs the public crowds of followers) to falsely create contradiction.


Baha'i Bible "error":


The synoptics and John do not agree about the day of the death of Jesus. According to Mark 14:12-26, Jesus and the disciples eat a regular Passover meal, at the regular time. Jesus is killed the next day, as we reckon days. According to John 13:1 and 19:31, the "last supper" occurs the day before Passover. Note that this discrepancy would make for different years. All gospels agree that Jesus was killed on Friday, but the synoptics make that Passover as Thursday night-Friday daytime, while John makes that Passover as Friday night-Saturday daytime.


Christian response


First we should notice that Mark 15:42 and John 19:31 are in agreement. Jesus died the Friday before the Sabbath and the bodies had to be taken down before evening. NO Gospel translation of John 13:1 says that the last supper occurred "the day before Passover". Mark 13:12 begins on the day of the Passover meal, before the evening meal. John 13 also begins the day of the Passover meal with Jesus reflecting on how he would, "show them the full extent of His love" that evening by washing their feet which He did at the meal. All accounts have Jesus eating His last meal with the disciples the evening before His crucifixion. After the meal they go to the garden where Jesus is arrested and then He is crucified the next day. I will assume that the argument is trying to use a Bible "error" which notices that John 19:14 has Jesus arrested and before Pilate on "the day of preparation for the Passover" (NAS) . This singular seemingly probematic instance has a very reasonable explanation.

EVERY mention of the Passover timing save John 19:14 is that the Passover was on Thursday and the crucifixion followed the next day. John 19:31 says it was the day of preparation for "a special Sabbath" NOT the Passover. John 19:14, however, reads; "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he (Pilate) said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" This would seem to have Jesus already arrested on the day before the Passover, having already eaten the last supper prior to the day of preparation for the Passover.

This observation should make the reasonable person seeking truth wish to resolve the one instance at John 19:14 that seems to be in conflict, in a reasonable way, if possible, so as to reconcile it with the otherwise unanimous Scriptural agreement on the subject. Logic would tell us that the overwhelming Scriptural evidence is for Friday as the day of crucifixion and, thus, Thursday as the Passover meal. Such an observation would suggest a need for deeper investigation into the wording of the singular conflicting passage. I mention this line of thought because, in contrast, Bible cynics are very pleased to leave a Bible problem a problem, not truly seeking to resolve it.

The answer to this seeming problem is revealed if we investigate the NIV translation of the text. At the point where Pilate has Jesus brought out, the NIV Bible at John 19:14 reads, "It was the day of preparation of Passover week, about the sixth hour." Two vital aspects of this translation are quite revealing. The word "paraskeue" (preparation) had already by the first century A.D. become an idiomatic or technical term for "Friday", every Friday being a day of preparation for the Sabbath day. As I stated, John 19:31 substantiates this point. It was, "the day of preparation and the next day was to be a special Sabbath." In modern Greek the word for Friday is, in fact, the same word, paraskeue. Also, the Greek term "tou pascha" (of the Passover) is considered to be the same as Passover Week. There is ample justification for this interpretation as the entire time from the massot (seven day feast of unleavened bread) that immediately preceded the Passover feast had very naturally come to be known as Passover Week (Encyclopedia Britannica 14th ed., 12:1041). Popular usage merged the two festivals, treating them as a single unified feast. It had become unnecessary to insert a specific term for "week" (sa-bua) for it to be understood as such. Therefore the literal phrase "the preparation of the Passover" found in John 19 can be reasonably justified with the other Gospels to mean "Friday of Passover Week", not Thursday. The explanation is both linguistically, idiomatically and culturally/ historically correct and reasonable.


Baha'i Bible "error":


A comparison of Kings and Chronicles is revealing. Chronicles contains various discrepancies, compared to Kings. In the Masoretic text (MT), II Chronicles 22:2 states that Ahaziah, the son of Joram, was 42-years-old when he began to reign, while II Kings 8:26 states that he was 22. (Since his father, Joram, was 40 years old when he died, and since a son cannot be older than his father, II Kings is possible and Chronicles impossible at this point.) Also, in the MT, II Chronicles 36:9 states that Jehoiachin was 8-years-old when he began to reign, and II Kings 24:8 states that Jehoiachin was 18 when he began to reign."


Christian Response


One immediately observes that the trivializing nature of these "errors" offer nothing in the way of meaningful problems on doctrine of any kind. With this in mind it is reasonable to suppose that the conflicts revealed simply amount to scribal errors in copying, not errors in original Bible text. There is, on the other hand, enough additional Scriptural information in the Biblical text to give us objectively correct answers. Second Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah's father Joram ben Ahab was thirty two when he became king, and died eight years later, at the age of 40. Thus Ahaziah couldn't have been 42 at the time of his father's death at 40. Similar Scriptural cross referencing justifies the true age of Jehoiachin as definitely 18 and not 8.

We observe in each case that it is always the decade number that varies, 42 against 22, 8 against 18. The numbering system in use at the time used horizontal hooks to represent decades. This would have made it very easy to have made the type of consistent scribal error in copying observed. A simple smudge could easily cause the copyist to miss a decade notation. In technical terms (legalistically speaking) we see a copyist's error. Now explain the doctrinal significance? The main point remains that these kinds of "errors" so trivialize that they find no legitimate place in the discussion we have been engaged in wherein major doctrinal contradictions in Baha'i theology have been revealed. Many of these trivial details have reasoned explanation, some are blatant and false creations of conflict, and some may be attributed to copyists errors over the millennia. None affect the clear message of Scriptural's spiritual doctrine.

Literal, fundamentalist, arguments against the Bible are as narrow minded and weak as the fundamentalism Baha'is and Bible critics keep falsely labeling and criticizing as the legitimate Christian outlook. It's easy to understand why the temptation is so strong to do so. It makes for an easy argument. The problem is that such legalism does NOT represent legitimate Christian doctrine. Such cynical fundamentalism fights the legalistic straw man it wants to criticize, with that very same blindly foolish kind of perspective. Legitimate Christian doctrine stands aloof from such a rigidly wooden interpretational perspective, shaking it's head.

It is infinitely more critical to be concerned about dealing with major doctrinal contradictions of spiritual principle if and when they are observed. The kinds of glaring and fundamental problems in comparing various Baha'i doctrines is far different than the nit-picking over errors in detail in the Bible that don't affect doctrinal intentions and integrity.

Baha'i religion, for example, claims basic spiritual principles for mankind, regressive and progressive, that are mutually contradictory. That's a very different and infinitely more profound problem than deciding whether Christ cleansed the temple once or twice. Baha'u'llah first commonizes all manifestations and then crowns himself supreme and final revelator, where, according to Abdul Baha, all to follow him will forever "remain under his shadow". A horrible double standard.

Independent and reasoned investigation for truth discovers that Baha'i religion, regardless of the lofty and noble proclamations and goals that lie on its surface, is riddled with the warning signs of these kinds of serious and fundamental doctrinal contradictions.


Baha'i Bible "error":


The Bible says that all men have sinned. That's a universal principle. Yet, Jesus was a man and did not sin. Christians say it's not a contradiction. They can't see the problems of their own religion while they are busy criticizing those of others.


Christian response


For any who have studied Scripture the solid biblical distinction between us as mere mortals, and Jesus who was both man and God is clear. Scripture says that MORTAL man is hopelessly lost in sin. Christ's station is defined as being both fully God as well as fully man and thus is utterly singular. The presenter of this "error" creates a non existent problem as he ignores this Scriptural distinction. Scripture says that Jesus "was like us in every way, save sin." How can that be? Because, as He himself said, "I and the Father are one.", and obviously God is not a sinner. You may call that a contradiction if you so desire. But Scripture is very clear in stating its intention to portray Christ as 1) immortal God, and 2) man, but in a singular special condition of human perfection by virtue of the deity He ALONE possesses amongst men. Within the context of those clearly proclaimed circumstances, Christ's singularly "sinless" human nature is not only NOT a Bible contradiction, it is a logical inevitability.


Baha'i Bible "error":


Jesus supposedly said in Mark that only God should be called "good," yet the very SAME word (look it up in any concordance) is used of men elsewhere in the NT.


Christian response


The Baha'i Bible cynic is going to be able to find an endless litany of Bible "errors" wherein one can list (completely out of context of the author's intended meaning) instances of biblical characters other than Jesus who were presumably "good and perfect". One example will serve to make my point. Genesis 6:9 reads; "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." The Baha'i presenter would take that to mean that Noah was as sinless as Jesus. Yet we can prove that Moses never meant it to be taken that way. We can see this from two perspectives. One is the linguistic manner of expletive in ancient Hebrew language which used exaggeration in the extreme as a form of the expletive. Second is the immediate context of what Genesis goes on to say about Noah. Linguistically, the Bible authors customarily used exaggeration to emphasize extremes without intending the meaning to be taken literally. We do this even today when we say things like, "That guy took a million years to get finished cooking dinner!" The Baha'i cynic who wants to use the above argument could be characterized as an archeologist on a dig who might discover such a sentence a million years later, who then goes out looking for the fellow expecting supper!

Baha'is, despite the fact that their forced reading must intrude upon the text with modern English literalism that ignores the idiomatic original usage, will often accuse that I am rationalizing to escape the plain meaning of the text. So let's look at what else Genesis says about Noah (context) to see how reason guides our thinking. Genesis 9:20 relays to the reader that Noah became so drunk that he passed out naked in his tent. Obviously the former statement about his being "righteous" was to say that, compared to other men of his day, he was an upright man. It cannot be made to seem that he was "sinless" in the same literal fashion as Jesus who, within the full biblical context of His being "Messiah", was specifically and repeatedly indicated as being singularly and utterly sinless amongst mankind. The same contextual distinction can be seen to justify the other such instances of "righteous" bible characters as compared to Jesus. Legitimate critical analysis never ignores context or original idiomatic device as this argument against Scripture has.


Baha'i Bible "error":


Compare Romans 15:12 with Isaiah 11:10. Paul changes the "it" of the verse to "he" and changes other words in the verse, to make it apply to Jesus instead of the "ensign" or "banner" that Isaiah 11:10 actually referred to.


Christian response


Here is one of those examples of a Bible "error" based on the presumed blatant dishonesty of the Bible authors themselves. If this line of argumentation were true it would be just as fatal to the Baha'i viewpoint of the Bible as being the "Word of God" as what it attempts to demonstrate of the Christian perspective. It ends up simply trashing Scripture outright, on any level. Let's do look at Romans 1:12 and compare it to Isaiah 11:10. In the NIV translation Romans 15:12 says,


"And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him."


The point made is that Jesus fulfills prophecy as that "root of Jesse".

Now let's look at Isaiah 11:10, in all of it's translations.


NIV: "In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to <HIM>, and <HIS> place of rest will be glorious."


NAS: "Then it will come about in that day That the nations will resort to the root of Jesse, <WHO> will stand as a signal for the peoples; And <HIS> resting place will be glorious."


RSV: "In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; <HIM> shall the nations seek, and <HIS> dwellings shall be glorious."


Living: "In that day he who created the royal dynasty of David (Jesse) will be a banner of salvation to all the world. The nations will rally to <HIM>, for the land where <HE> lives will be a glorious place."

 

And now for the main point. The only place the Baha'i argument could possibly find where Paul could seem to have changed a word is in the King James version which reads, "And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to <IT> shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

This, obviously another misused KJ translational inaccuracy, shows no redefining on the part of Paul. It shows a translational inaccuracy of a minor nature, used by the Baha'i apologist in ignorance to create yet another false Bible "error". We notice that the New King James corrects the error: "And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek <HIM>, And <HIS> resting place shall be glorious." But, in any case, even the old King James version reads that the "it" it speaks of (the root of Jesse) is, in fact , a "him" : "...and <HIS> rest will be glorious."


Baha'i Bible "error":


Jesus said one shouldn't call Him good. Only God is good. Yet, in other places in the New Testament Jesus is said to be sinless. Is this not a basic contradiction of a fundamental aspect of Christ's station and thus a very "non trivial" Bible contradiction?


Christian Response


But if we look at the actual text of the passage referred to, we find that Jesus says no such thing. There is a common misreading that often comes up with respect to Mark 10:17 when the issue of Bible "errors" arises. The assumption is that the text has Jesus forbidding us to call Him "good", "for only God is good". The passage cannot be made to mean that without forcing unbiblical presuppositions onto the passage that simply aren't there and that even become impossible we we consider greater biblical context on the subject. (John 8:46, for example)

Jesus, we recall, asked the rhetorical question, "Why do you call me good", to a man who had addressed Him as, "good <TEACHER>". In fact, that is as far as Jesus goes. He does not answer the question in the immediate context of this story. He reflects upon the manner in which the man addressed Him, correctly pointing out that if the man only thought of Him as a "good <TEACHER>", then he mistakenly calls Him "good" (for only God is good). Jesus does not say not to call Him good. He only tells us that mortal "teachers" aren't. His conception of Himself as Scriptural "Messiah" is distinctly a different station than that of "good teacher". It carries with it implications that are more lofty than that of a "teacher" to the degree of infinity, to the degree of God. Here we have a passage where the person in the story is wrongly addressing God the Son as merely a "good teacher" and Jesus is pointing out the impossibility of that label. This is especially emphasized by that fact that the man is asking Jesus for the secret of "everlasting life". The answer to that question immediately implies that the answerer be the Messiah/ Savior, who could only be God. In fact, Jesus more than implies an answer to His rhetorical question of whether we should call Him good when He presumes to go on and answer the man's question. Only God is good and only God the Son, the Savior Messiah, could have the Words of everlasting life. (recall Peter's words in the Gospel when Jesus asked him if he was going to leave with other unbelievers. Peter then answered Him, "but Lord where shall we go? Only You have the Words' of eternal life.")

Jesus does NOT tell us openly either that we should or should not call Him good in this passage. One must put words into his mouth to have Him say so. Words that He neither said, nor could have meant given other instances of His having reflected upon His station. (again, see John 8:46 to help set this unanswered question of Jesus into its proper biblical context). Jesus only asks why the man calls Him "good teacher" (a spiritual impossibility), while at the same time asking Him questions worthy only for God to answer. But implications in the immediate context of this passage lead us to an opposite conclusion than that of the Bible cynic. That Jesus presumes to go ahead and answer the man's necessarily God directed question demonstrates a self concept on Jesus' part far above that title of "good teacher" with which he had been mistakenly addressed.

We can also see revealed in Jesus perspective in this passage a fundamental (non trivial) and very definitive (not reconcilable through symbolism) dichotomy between Scripture and Baha'i teaching. Baha'i doctrine would have us believe that Manifestations are not God incarnate but only "good teachers" who mirror God but are not God. Christ is emphasizing the spiritual impossibility of such an outlook. Jesus said that John the Baptist was as holy a mere mortal as any. Yet he went on to remark that John would be considered less than least in the Kingdom of heaven (no MERE mortal in the carnal world can be truly "good", only God). Thus He refutes the Baha'i conception that manifestations can be "good" teachers, while yet not being God incarnate. This we see is emphasized as Christ points out the impossibility of the label that the man in Mark 10:17 attributed to Him, "good teacher".

Thus, what we find in this passage is not a Bible error that reveals a contradiction within the Bible itself. We find that what this passage really reveals is a major objective clash between Baha'i doctrine and the true intentions of Jesus Christ. Since the Bible is supposed to be considered the Word of God by Baha'i theology, and Jesus is supposed to be considered a manifestation whose outlook represents a perfect reflection of God, and there are not supposed to be any "real" spiritual differences on fundamental doctrines across the world religions, the observation of this definitive dichotomy between Baha'i theology and Scripture's intended Message is fatal to the validity of Baha'i theology.


Baha'i Bible "error":


Christians judge the Bahai Faith based upon a specific and personal interpretation of the Word. They are not the only one who have done so. Peter himself carried a sword to Gethsemane. Hadn't Jesus just said He must be killed to be the Messiah? Even His disciples misunderstood His purpose. Obviously this is revealed by Peter's sword.


Christian response


This is a very interesting (and common) viewpoint Baha'i religion takes with respect to the New Testament authors. Baha'is will tell you that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and they will undyingly uphold the inspired integrity and absolute accuracy of Baha'i "holy" writings, but have no problem whatever casting the Bible authors as such dull witted and uninspired men that one must wonder how Baha'is live with the glaring double standard? Certainly if one criticizes Peter as "confused", then Jesus Himself would have to be caste as less than inspired for letting him, and the other presumably misinformed New Testament authors, stand as the only testimony of His ministry to the world. Even if you must wrongly insist that Jesus' "dispensation" was only valid during His era, it remains untenable that such a "manifestation" would have left such a distorted version of His legacy as Bahai's accuse the NT authors of having done. We notice that Baha'is caste no disparaging accusations of "confusion" upon any of the writings of Baha'u'llah's non manifestation successors Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi. (Though, despite their lack of recognition as such, there are offshoot "denominations" of Baha'i religion who have rejected various of the non manifestation successors).

By principle then we must give to Christ Jesus the same perfectly inspired authority to have delegated to the Apostles and Paul the accurate and singular story of His life and mission. His decision not to personally write anything down would alone be His tacit certification of the truth in what they (His hand chosen evangelists) said. But there was more than a silent pen with which he endorsed them. He commanded them openly to spread the "good news." It was the specific mission he gave to them and for which they gave up their lives. You cannot degrade the integrity of their Gospel without degrading the integrity of Christ who commissioned them. But if you believe what they say about Jesus and stop discrediting their report as that of "confused" men..... Then you can begin to see why the Baha'i accusation appears against them in the first place. Baha'i religion, in reality, cannot theologically survive the Gospel message as it was intended.

More specifically to the point this line of argument has tried to make with respect to Peter and his sword, it has failed to observe that the "confused" Peter mentioned is the same one who was still to deny Jesus three times. This was the Peter that earlier had told Jesus that he would not let Him be crucified (for which Jesus said to him, "Get thee behind me Satan"). This was the pre- Pentecostal Peter who fled the night Christ was arrested, not the one who boldly marched to his own crucifixion filled with the Holy Spirit. No small distinction. Not the same Peter. Not the same level of inspired leading by God's Spirit as the Peter who, post -Pentecost, wrote his share of the New Testament. But then, Baha'i religion does not credit the Pentecost with the same weight as does Scripture. One would wisely side with Scripture. In fact, one should observe that this dramatic line of demarcation between that Peter who was "confused" and the very different one who wrote his share of the New Testament and was willing to die a martyr's death are wrapped up in 1) Peter's dramatic realization of the LITERAL Resurrection of Jesus and 2) the Pentecostal event through which he was spiritually transformed. The implications of these observations defy both the Baha'i symbolic redefining of Jesus Resurrection, as well as the redefined Baha'i interpretation of just what the Pentecostal event in Acts was. Unlike Baha'i teachings, these inarguable implications concerning Peter's sudden and dramatic transformation (as well as the other Apostles) supports Scripture's clear intention that the Pentecost event was, in fact, the coming of the Spirit/counselor/ comforter promised by Jesus "in a few days", yet impossibly claimed some nearly 2,000 years later by Baha'u'llah.


Baha'i Bible "error":


Tell me what happened on Easter. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born. Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the Resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Cor. 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matt. 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8.

Without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture - it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted.

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone - an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation arises with contradictions.

Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives us one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.

One of the first problems I found is in Matt. 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived.

Yet Mark's gospel says it happened before the (three) women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulcher? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes:

"And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matt. 28:2 begins, "And behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee, as predicted by the angel sitting on the rock; "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." (This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself during the Last Supper, Matt. 26:32.) Matt. 28:16-17 says, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted."

Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to be the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt? Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance.

Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later that evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are difficult to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong. An elephant is not a rope or a tree. And you can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist: I'm not demanding that