Latter-day Saints have a rather high view of the Bible (in spite of the objections of some detractors). However, LDS do not hold to the concept of inerrancy (not just the Bible, but all canonical works). Even the Book of Mormon states it could contain the mistakes of men; in the title page, we read:
And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.
There are many proof-texts used to support the concept of biblical inerrancy, but they are based on eisegesis (e.g., John 10:35).
One of the best well-known claims of a contradiction in the Bible can be found in the conflicting descriptions of Judas’ death in the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles:
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. (Matt 27:5)
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. (Acts 1:18)
According to Matthew, Judas died by hanging himself; in Acts, Judas fell and his entails gushed out.
Apologists for inerrancy have tried (rather desperately) to support the inerrancy of the Bible (at least the autographia [originals]). For instance, Ron Rhodes in his The 10 Most Important Things you Can Say to a Mormon (Harvest House, 2001) argued that Judas hanged himself and, after he died, the rope snapped and Judas fell onto rocks, resulting in his entrails gushing out, with Matthew giving just part of the entire story as does Acts, and only by combining both together can one get the full picture.
Firstly, it should be noted that Rhodes and other apologists for inerrancy are using a standard for the Bible that they would never apply to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as well as other texts that purport to be inspired Scripture. Of course, most LDS apologists already know our critics apply a double-standard, so this is nothing new.
Secondly, to call the response of Rhodes (and others) “stupid” is to put things rather nicely. Consider the following problems with this pathetic attempt at harmonisation:
· Judas committed suicide by hanging; therefore, his head and upper torso would have been closest to the tree limb that he was hanging from and his feet nearest to the ground. Consequently, from a hanging position, Judas would be falling feet first. Yet Acts reports that Judas fell head first without any mention of a hanging. It would seem that Judas would need to be hanging from a substantial height from his body to have adequate time to rotate or tumble into a head first position. The physics of such a scenario is open to speculation.
· Even if Judas were assumed to be falling head first, he would have presumably split open his head, not his guts.
· Exegesis is not the driving force behind the “response” by Rhodes et al.; instead, it is a defence of a dogma resulting in clear eisegesis.
It is abundantly clear by reading the Evangelical Protestant apologists that they will not accept any evidence that overturns biblical inerrancy No matter how badly a text has erred - historically, chronological or otherwise - no charge against biblical inerrancy will ever stick. It would save us a lot of time if Evangelical apologists will simply admit this. In reality, this is nothing short of historical gymnastics and wishful reconstructions at best - and blatant dishonesty at worst.