Fundamentalism annoys me. It does not take the Bible seriously, and makes a joke out of a faith that I cherish. In my experience, Fundamentalists have turned more people away from God than to God, and have (sometimes permanently) scarred the face of Christianity to those they turn away. This post is not so much a rant as it is begging for an answer that makes sense. It seems as if a good slogan for a Fundamentalist would be:
"It wouldn't be faith if it made sense."
If you are a Fundamentalist who does not agree with that slogan, then I beg of you to consider the rest of this post, and see if you wish to remain in your ignorance.
I will now proceed to show different examples that reveal the ludicrousness of the idea of "Biblical Inerrancy." Some are more interpretive than others, but all are worth noting. To keep the attention of any Fundamentalist that has made it this far, however, I will state the easiest ones first so they do not have to think too hard.
The Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew is different from Luke. Although there are many instances that they are different, I will only point out one. Who was Jesus' grandfather? Was it Jacob (Matthew 1.16) or Heli (Luke 3.23)? It should be noted that Matthew's gospel was written from a Jewish standpoint for a Jewish audience, and that even the genealogy was theology. In brief, Hebrew has no numbers, and they use letters instead (English equivalent: A=1, B=2, etc.). David in Hebrew is also the number 14. Matthew's genealogy has 14 generations between Abraham and David, between David and the exile, and from the exile to Jesus. This eliminates the argument that Matthew was skipping generations. Luke has 41 people between Jesus and David (as opposed to Matthew's 28). This would make one of them (or both of them) wrong.
The order of Creation is different in Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1 it is clearly vegetation (day 3), water creatures (day 5), Land creatures (first thing in day 6), then mankind (end of day 6). The most important thing is that animals were created first, and then mankind was made to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (Genesis 1.26). There is little to no way that this can be interpreted in any way other than the creation of mankind as the final act of creation. Genesis 2, however, tells a different story. In Genesis 2, man is formed, then vegetation, then animals, then woman. This lends itself to more interpretation than Genesis 1, which is why it is often twisted around to conform. However, if the text is to be taken seriously, it must be seen as a separate account. Man is formed (2.7), Eden is planted (2.8), vegetation is grown (2.9), animals are created to help man (2.18), woman is made (2.22). Attention must be called specifically to the fact that in Genesis 1, Mankind is created to have dominion over the animals that already exist, whereas in Genesis 2, the animals were created to help man that already existed.
One of the funniest contradictions is the story of Jesus riding into Jerusalem. Matthew 21 records Jesus riding on two animals (a donkey and a colt), somehow straddling the two, while Mark 11 and Luke 19 tell the traditional story of a colt only. The author of Matthew apparently misread Zechariah 9.9 and told his story to conform to the way he read it.
Did Jesus pray that God would not make him go through with his crucifixion? Matthew 26.39, Mark 14.36, and Luke 22.42 tell the story of Jesus praying this very thing: that he wouldn't have to do what he was about to do. John 12.27 explicitly denies that Jesus would do such a thing.
Who incited David to take a census of Israel? 2 Samuel 24.1 says it was God, but 1 Chronicles 21.1 says it was Satan. Did David do it twice?
When was Passover the week that Jesus died? The synoptics (Matthew 26.17, Mark 14.12, Luke 22.7) say that Passover was on the Thursday night (the last supper). John's (18.39, 19.14, 31) gospel places Passover on Friday (the day of Jesus' death).
Did Jesus deliver his sermon on the mount or the plain? Matthew 5, in typical Matthew fashion, has Jesus, his Messiah, up on a hill to deliver his sermon (5.1). Luke, however, in making Jesus accessible to even the lowly of society, has him deliver it on a level plain (6.17).
There are many (many) more than those mentioned above, but I feel like these are representative enough. By ignoring these texts, or interpreting them to fit together in some twisted way, Fundamentalists insult the integrity of the Bible and turn away those that realize it.
I must clarify that I am not saying that Fundamentalists are bad or stupid people. I am saying that they either don't read the Bible they claim to be sacred, or do not understand what they read. Perhaps this is because they were raised this way, but that does not make it right. It makes it tragic.
