actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake?

Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather

The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly

translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3).

Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was subatomic components of an uranium atom are suitably rearranged, the uranium atom ceases to exist and two barium atoms come into existence. exist and other atoms are formed. For example, ([L02],170) if the

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12).

Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25),

and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49). Augustine's definition of error was strict. When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced

to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather

The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect

tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago

than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was subatomic components of an uranium atom are suitably rearranged, the uranium atom ceases to exist and two barium atoms come into existence. exist and other atoms are formed. For example, ([L02],170) if the

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not

necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen

. . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25), and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49). Augustine's definition of error was strict. When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that

scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather

than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings.

than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings. By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was bordering on heresy. ([M02],66). So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with

physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true. It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of any individual. To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand, when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded

Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse. [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6).

It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14). (This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832). Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote

seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation,

but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired

pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was subatomic components of an uranium atom are suitably rearranged, the uranium atom ceases to exist and two barium atoms come into existence. exist and other atoms are formed. For example, ([L02],170) if the

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists,

science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25), and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49). Augustine's definition of error was strict. When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings. By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was bordering on heresy. ([M02],66).

So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true. It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of any individual. To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand, when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into

untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse. [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the

light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6). It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14). (This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832).

Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad

general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the

basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was subatomic components of an uranium atom are suitably rearranged, the uranium atom ceases to exist and two barium atoms come into existence. exist and other atoms are formed. For example, ([L02],170) if the

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world,

too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25), and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49). Augustine's definition of error was strict.

When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to

correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings. By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was bordering on heresy. ([M02],66). So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true. It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of

any individual. To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand, when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which

was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse. [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6). It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14). (This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial

fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832). Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect

tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago

than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was subatomic components of an uranium atom are suitably rearranged, the uranium atom ceases to exist and two barium atoms come into existence. exist and other atoms are formed. For example, ([L02],170) if the

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not

necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen

. . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25), and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49). Augustine's definition of error was strict. When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that

scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings. By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was bordering on heresy. ([M02],66). So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true.

It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of any individual. To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand, when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect

of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse. [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6). It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14).

(This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832). Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer

explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible

"Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was subatomic components of an uranium atom are suitably rearranged,

the uranium atom ceases to exist and two barium atoms come into existence. exist and other atoms are formed. For example, ([L02],170) if the

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that

Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25), and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49). Augustine's definition of error was strict. When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference,

Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings. By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was bordering on heresy. ([M02],66). So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in

Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true. It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of any individual. To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand, when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept

the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse. [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought

to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6). It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14). (This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832). Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense

intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet.

The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous

men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was subatomic components of an uranium atom are suitably rearranged, the uranium atom ceases to exist and two barium atoms come into existence. exist and other atoms are formed. For example, ([L02],170) if the

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and

the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25), and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49). Augustine's definition of error was strict. When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other?

He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings. By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was

bordering on heresy. ([M02],66). So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true. It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of any individual. To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand,

when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse.

[T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6). It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14). (This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense

intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832). Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable

age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication:

Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was subatomic components of an uranium atom are suitably rearranged, the uranium atom ceases to exist and two barium atoms come into existence. exist and other atoms are formed. For example, ([L02],170) if the

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about

the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24), that Origen . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25), and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49).

Augustine's definition of error was strict. When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error? Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know.

But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings. By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was bordering on heresy. ([M02],66). So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true. It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing

of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of any individual. To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand, when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse. [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6). It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14). (This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some

Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832). Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young

woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said:

We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was subatomic components of an uranium atom are suitably rearranged, the uranium atom ceases to exist and two barium atoms come into existence. exist and other atoms are formed. For example, ([L02],170) if the

Astronomers no longer look to the Bible for information about the sun, stars, and planets. And the Catholic Church now teaches that . . . the Bible is free from error in what pertains to

religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science). ([D09],12). Biologists and astronomers have found science's way of knowing superior to religion's. But if science's way of knowing yields superior knowledge about the natural world, could it yield superior knowledge about the "supernatural" world, as well? If revelation is wrong about the natural world, could it be wrong about the "supernatural" world, too? We'll return to these questions later.

Claim 1: Internal Consistency Whenever revelation contradicts some accepted fact, fundamentalists can always say revelation is right and the accepted "fact" is wrong. If scientists say the universe is fifteen to twenty billion years old, and the Bible says it's a few thousand years old then, say fundamentalists, science is wrong and the Bible right. But what happens when the fact is in another part of the revelation? For example, what happens when the Bible contradicts itself? This brings us to the question of internal consistence: does the bible agree with itself? Throughout the ages, many leading religious figures have said it does. For example, in Inerrancy And The Church ([I03]) we read that Clement of Rome claimed that the Scriptures were errorless. ([I03],23), that Tertullian was swift to argue . . . that the Scriptures contained no contradictory material nor error. ([I03],24),

that Origen . . . perceived the Scriptures as perfect and noncontradictory . . . ([I03],25), and, finally, that [f]or Augustine, it was an article of faith that there is no real discrepancy or contradiction in all of Scripture. ([I03],49). Augustine's definition of error was strict. When Augustine declared the Bible to be free from error, he explicitly rejected the presence of inadvertent mistakes as well as conscious deception. ([I03],53). Yet he knew Matthew 27:9 attributes a quote to Jeremiah which is actually Zechariah 11:13. If not a conscious deception, wasn't this at least a mistake? Could Augustine avoid seeing it as one or the other? He could. Augustine's explanation ([I03],44) was as follows. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the name "Jeremiah" first came to Matthew's mind. Then Matthew realized the quote was actually Zechariah's but decided the Holy Spirit had allowed "Jeremiah" to come to mind to indicate "the essential unity of the words of the prophets." So Matthew bowed "to the authority of the Holy Spirit" and wrote "Jeremiah" instead of the correct reference, Zechariah. Augustine illustrates how religious believers defend scripture's "inerrancy" and "harmonize" its inconsistencies. Augustine knows Matthew 27:9 is wrong. Yet he can't make a simple correction or acknowledge a simple mistake. Why? Why can't he improve scripture and make it more truthful and consistent by correcting a simple error?

Because his way of knowing doesn't allow it. The principle that scripture is written by God and already error-free prevents him from acknowledging and correcting a simple mistake. Instead, he's forced to find an "explanation" that upholds the inerrancy of scripture. Augustine takes the safe, though not entirely truthful, path. Rather than admit a simple mistake he "explains" it. What would have happened if he had admitted and corrected the mistake? I don't know. But here's what happened to some unfortunate monks who dared to correct, not even scripture itself, but merely a manual of blessings. By the seventeenth century, errors had crept into ([M02],66) medieval Russia's translations of scriptures and other holy writings. Three monks decided to correct a minor holy writing. But [t]o correct any text that had been good enough for the great saints of early Russian Christianity was bordering on heresy. ([M02],66). So [i]n gratitude for their corrections made, the three had been tried in . . . 1618; their corrections were declared heretical. ([M02],67). One monk was . . . excommunicated from the Church, imprisoned in Novospasskij monastery, beaten and tortured with physical cruelties and mental humiliations. ([M02],67).

Mistakes Perpetuated Anyone who denies the smallest part of "revealed" scripture risks humiliation, ostracism, and perhaps torture and death. This was true at

many times in the past. And in some countries it's still true. It would be wrong, however, to think that only dishonesty or fear prevents Augustine from acknowledging mistakes in scripture. There's a deeper reason: he is blinded by his way of knowing. Believing that scripture is penned by God and error-free prevents him from correcting simple errors. His way of knowing, which is supposed to help him find truth, hinders him. This illustrates a failing of the revelational way of knowing itself, as opposed to a failing of any individual. To elaborate, people who follow a certain ideology or belong to a certain group and who happen to be untruthful, sadistic or murderous don't necessarily discredit the ideology or group. (If members of a knitting club decide to poison their spouses, that doesn't necessarily show there is something wrong with knitting.) On the other hand, when the ideology or group itself turns truthful, sane people into untruthful, sadistic or murderous persons, then something is wrong with the ideology or group. (Racism, for example, can have this evil effect on those whom it influences.) Although Augustine's way of knowing didn't make him sadistic or murderous (I don't know if the same can be said for the architects of the Inquisition.), it did blind him to an untruth and force him to accept the false as true. The principle that God is scripture's author blinded Augustine to a simple fact - that scripture sometimes contradicts itself. Therefore, the revelational way of knowing can enshrine error and hinder the search for truth. The reference in Matthew could be easily changed from Jeremiah to Zechariah, but belief in divine authorship

doesn't allow it. Yet the Bible has been amended - not with the effect of reducing an error but of increasing it. Here's the story of an intentional mistranslation that persists even today.

Consistency versus Truthfulness Christianity teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. About the Virgin Birth of Jesus, Matthew writes: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ([H08],Matt 1:22-23). One bible has a curious footnote to this verse. [T]his is a prophetic reinterpretation of Is 7, 14 in the light of the facts Matthew has outlined . . . ([N02],NT,6), the facts being Jesus's virgin birth, messianic mission, and special relation to God. The footnote continues: All these things about Jesus that were faintly traced in Is 7, 14 are now seen by Matthew to be fully brought to light as God's plan. ([N02],NT,6). It's not quite clear what "prophetic reinterpretation" and "faintly traced" means. Perhaps a reference to Isaiah will help. Turning to Isaiah 7:14, we read Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and

shall call his name Immanuel. ([H08],Is 7:14). (This verse is an intentional mistranslation of the original, as we shall soon see.) This verse, too, has a curious footnote. The church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which . . . was to fulfill . . . the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom. ([N02],OT,832). Again, a few things aren't clear. What does "transcendent fulfillment" mean? Why would the church have to choose to follow either Matthew (who never identifies the prophet he quotes) or Isaiah? Why would some Catholic writers seek a "preliminary and partial fulfillment" in King Hezekiah? How could a prophet fail to know the "full force latent in his own words"? What does "integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom" mean? The authors of the footnote seem to be half-heartedly trying to tell us something. Like Augustine, does their way of knowing prevent them too from acknowledging a plain and simple fact, plainly and simply? We'll see that it does. Arsenal For Skeptics ([A09]) has selections of biblical criticism whose authors don't accept the absolute truthfulness and sacredness of

every biblical verse. Therefore, one writer can present a much clearer explanation of the verses from Matthew and Isaiah. Isaiah's original Hebrew . . . falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. VII, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived - (is with child) - and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. ([A09],68). Thus, the words of Isaiah are falsely translated even today, and Matthew quotes no known prophet. The authors of the footnotes tried to tell the truth of the situation, but could not. Why? Because the belief that God is scripture's Author prevented them. That belief prevented them from communicating the plain and simple truth. Their way of knowing, in this case, prevented them from reaching truth. For those interested in a contemporary discussion of biblical

inerrancy there is 136 Biblical Contradictions ([O01]) and 136 Bible "Contradictions"Answered ([M08]). I've found contradictions in other scriptures but don't know of any similar references although they may well exist.

The Erosion of Truthfulness Martin Luther once said: We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist ([C05],3). Today some people still believe the world is only a few thousand years old and like the Seventh-day Adventists, who follow a scriptural view of creation, still reject biological evolution. From a Seventh-day Adventist publication: Evolution in whatever form or shape contradicts the basic foundations of Christianity . . . Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed. ([S10],92). Other religions, however, over the past few centuries have finally realized the Bible is less than perfectly true. The realization hasn't come cheaply. For centuries, anyone who dared disagree with the Bible risked exile, torture or death. Only the martyrdom of numerous men and women, in the Inquisition and other religiously-inspired pogroms, finally eroded belief in total biblical accuracy. Because of their sacrifice, today some Christian groups can admit that scriptures don't contain the absolute, complete and final truth. For example, Leonard Swidler writes: Until the nineteenth century truth in the West was