Published in the Sheltonian 4, no. 6 (Dec 9, 1970): 9.

Biblical Accuracyand Human Error

Robert C. Newman

As Christians we believe that our most basic informationabout God and about ourselves comes to us in the Scriptures.  Although men ought to recognize theexistence of God by examining nature, many do not (Rom 1:18-32).  Furthermore, the hopeless plight of manin his sinfulness and God's solution to this are known only through the Bible.  It is therefore of utmost importancethat Christians fully trust God's word so they may apply it to every aspect oftheir lives.

If you were to take your car to a mechanic who was reputedto be very competent, you would begin to have doubts about his ability if hekept calling a certain part the starter when you knew it was thegenerator. Now your doubts mightbe unfounded after all, but they would certainly be natural andreasonable. Yet there are somepersons today who tell us that the Bible is right in religious matters (wherewe cannot test it) but wrong in scientific and historical matters (where we cantest it).

With the rapid advance in scientific and historicalknowledge since about 1700, a number of contradictions have been allegedbetween the Bible and findings in these areas. In dealing with such matters, Christians need to considertwo important questions. First, towhat extent does the scientific or historical data require the interpretationususally given by the academic community? Second, to what extent does the Biblical material require the interpretationtraditionally given by the Christian community? Both of these interpretations involve human understanding,which may be in error, even though the data of God's world and the statementsof God's word will not be in error.

Let us consider an example I have studied recently.  In Job 37:18, the King James Versionreads:

"Hast thou with him [God] spreadout the sky, which is strong and as a molten looking glass?"

The Revised Standard Versions reads:

"Can you, like him, spread out theskies, hard as a molten mirror?"

Here we seem to have a real problem.  Few people today would be willing tosay the sky is actually solid, although this seems to be the clear teaching ofthis passage as translated about 1611 by consecrated Christians (with a limitedknowledge of the universe) and about 1952 by men who should at least knowHebrew. Some conservatives havesought to avoid this problem by noting that it is Elihu, one of Job's friends,who is speaking. But God does notrebuke Elihu for speaking error as He does Job's other three friends.

I believe the solution can be found by looking carefully atthe Hebrew of this passage and accepting what it says, rather than merely accepting one translation (interpretation)made by Christians before the age of science or another made by modern men whobelieve the Bible has errors.

The word rendered "sky, skies" here is the pluralof shahaq, which is also translated"cloud(s), small dust, heaven" elsewhere in the King JamesVersion. The lexicon (dictionary)of Brown, Driver and Briggs indicates the word is derived from the verb meaning"to pulverize," and the noun is listed with the meanings "dust,cloud." "Sky" islisted only as a usage under "cloud." Having examined all usages of this word in the OldTestament, I suggest that all can be rendered either "dust" or"cloud(s)." Elihu'sprevious use of the word in Job 36:28 demands the translation"clouds," and even the context of Job 37:18 concerns present-dayweather conditions, not the activity of God at creation.

The translation of re'iyas "mirror" is even stranger, though almost universal among Englishversions of the Bible. But thelexicon cites no other occurrence of the word but here! The original Hebrew Old Testament waswritten without vowels (as most Hebrew is today); these were put in by Jewishscholars in the tenth century AD, so that the Jews, who no longer spoke Hebrew,might pronounce the words properly in the synagogue services,  By changing one vowel to get ro'iy, we obtain a word meaning "looking, sight,appearance." This word occursseveral times in Scripture, of which Job 33:21 (Elihu speaking) and Nahum 3:6are noteworthy. This thissuggestion is not merely a modern attempt at harmonization is clear from thefact that the ancient Greek Septuagint translation uses horasis here, meaning "sight, appearance," not"mirror."

Hence we find that this verse can be translated:

"Can you , with him, spread outmighty clouds, with an appearance of being poured out?"

Thus two suggested changes in the traditional translation ofthis passage remove the apparent contradiction with modern science.  Notice that each of these changes findsindependent support in the context, elsewhere in the Bible, or in ancienttranslations.

The Bible can betrusted in scientific and historical areas. But we must examine our interpretations of the Bible, aswell as those of science and history, if we are to avoid serious error.