How to Harmonize Your Holy Book.
Eight-teen Key Methodological Principles for Successful Exegesis:
by Vincent Sapone
[1] Assume the Biblical Works are not Like other similar Ancient Works Which All contain Errors (e.g. Josephus).
[2] Assume your Holy Book is true while other holy books are false and apply different standards to each.
[3] Assume it is a Valid Practice to Interpret Scripture in Light of Other Scripture since it is all Consistent.
[4] When Moral Atrocities come up tell the skeptic that he is in no position to judge God. For example, when God sanctions slavery by requiring a bride-price in the Old Testament or when he murders children (e.g. the tenth plague) you mujst obstinately equire that the skeptic supply you with a Proven Objective Moral Standard.
[5] To defend inerrancy, all you need to do is come up with a logically possible solution. It doesn't matter how improbable it may be. If it can be harmonized in any way imaginable, it is not a demonstrable error. Be creative as we are dealing with a "high context" society. For example, if Mark said "John wore a blue shirt" and Matthew said, "John wore a red shirt" its obvious John had on two shirts, one of which was red and the other of which was blue.
[6] Assume the Bible is all one work and not rather a collection of individual books. Canonization has been proven and can be ignored in ALL discussions on the Bible. Everyone knows what books compose the Bible (except a billion Catholics). QED.
[7] God wrote the Bible and God can't make mistakes. So even if two passages look like a plain example of an error, try real hard for Jesus to harmonize them. For example, take the "faith vs. works" dilemma and simply say "faith and works"!
[8] Take into account ancient written conventions. If it was the norm then to make things up and lie in written works, false statements in the Bible are not really errors since this literary practice was the norm at the time. For example, if a text appears to give a chronological statement such as "next" or "and then" or "at that time" it doesn't matter if the chronology differs. Creative chronology was the norm at the time.
[9] Skeptics have the burden of proof. No errors have been demonstrated in 2,000 years. The Bible shows its divine origins by 'mediating the sacred' effectively and it purports to be a work of nonfiction. It must be granted the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise. It is innocent until proven guilty.
[10] An incomplete report is not false. It doesn't matter how many details an author leaves out. Even if it is very unlikely that this author would have left all the details in question out, it is still technically not an error. By way of example, suppose I am a witness in a traffic accident. One car was stopped at a light behind another and the two cars collided because the man in the front car just decided to go in reverse and smash the car behind it out of sheer boredom. I'm in court and I tell the judge "the cars smashed together" and I fail to mention the absurd driving of the front car I technically cannot be faulted with error. My account is accurate. The cars did smash together.
[11] General statements do not necessarily mean universal principles. You are fee to pick and choose, at will, what you want to interpret as binding versus what has been "fulfilled by Christ". You are free to choose what you feel only applied to a certain culture and is simply no longer applicable. For example, women no longer have to be silent in church and subservient to men but practicing homosexuals are hellbound. You need not supply a methodology for such a procedure.
[12] Do not trust skeptic,"scholarly" or liberal Christian interpretations. Only a person of spirit can understand the word written by the Spirit. Fallen man cannot understand the word of God. Biblical Criticism is God-hating secular communism and nothing more. Just ask with mock indignation, "why would eyewitness Matthew need to copy off of eyewitness Mark"?
[13] Ignore worldview differences and that the Bible was written thousands of years ago by authors with many different beliefs and different sets of background knowledge. Read the Bible as if you would read a modern book written in our own era. God would have made sure his infallible work is adaptable and readable to all culturs and situations. The Bible is "magically delicious".
[14] When science errors are posed, point out evolution is just a theory. Say that half a wing is no good. Quote a book written by a lawyer, not a scientist. Point out that dinosaur and human footprints have been found together and that a young earth has now been proven by scientists.
[15] Ignore textual errors and the fact that God let his word be altered and corrupted through time. Despite not having any autographs or very early (50-100 years) copies of any of the works and no way of knowing what many passages originally looked like, point out that we have thousands of copies of later copies of the Bible.
[16] Ignore all relevant philological studies into the culture and language in question. Lacking formal expertise, simply use a lexicon casually to reinterpret anything that seems to create an incongruity in scripture. God will certainly guide you.
[17] Tell skeptics the Biblie accounts can be trusted because some of the towns in the Bible were real places, some of the people were real places and some of the structures have been found, Has anyone ever found Mount Doom? Has anyone ever seen a Lilliputians? Has anyone ever attempted to draw back Odysseus's bow?
[18] Chronology is not important in the Gospels. Whether Jesus cleansed the temple twice or once is irrelevant. John placed it at the beginning of his Gospel and the other three placed it at the end but none of the gospels, except possibly Luke's "orderly account" claim to give things in order. It would have been perfectly fine for Matthew to open his gospel with the death of Jesus, then jump to his baptism, then the resurrection and then finally close the account with his birth narrative.