There was a recent article in USA Today that asserted that the Bible was inconsistent and that we shouldn't take it literally. The argument was that the Gospels contradict themselves even on an event like Easter.
The man quoted in the article is a guy by the name of Bart Ehrman. Ehrman and his cohorts Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan are notorious for their attacks (the ones I've read are quite feeble) on the Word of God.
A couple of things in response to the article. First, the so-called inconsistencies are really just different dimensions of the same event. For example,
As Jesus was dying on the cross, was he in agony, questioning why God had forsaken him? Or was he serene, praying for his executioners? It depends, Ehrman points out, on whether you're reading the Gospel of Mark or Luke. Regarding Jesus' birthplace of Bethlehem, had his parents traveled there for a census (Luke's version) or is it where they happened to live (Matthew's version)? Did Jesus speak of himself as God? (Yes, in John; no, in Matthew.)
On the cross Jesus faced a whole gamut of emotions. When Jesus uttered his cry he was quoting Psalm 22 which leads us to ask if he was even really questioning God. Jesus did come to Bethlehem for a census and then apparently took up residence in Bethlehem. Not at all an unlikely scenario since those back in Nazareth would have considered Mary to have been unfaithful to Joseph. And the whole "Did Jesus claim to be God" thing . . . Jesus claimed to be God in a number of different ways. John records him being much more direct but Jesus certainly claimed the authority of God in Matthew too. These authors were writing to different people and would have approached the issue differently. Big deal.
Second, you are going to read more in the media about these authors (they espouse what the liberal media wants to believe is true...so they are turned to for quotes often). I tried reading one of their books once....I couldn't get past the presuppositions that the Bible could not be true because it records miracles and things that surely didn't happen. Their presupposition is an anti-supernaturalism. In other words, anything supernatural had to be added later to make Jesus or the apostles look good. (They also really don't like the apostle Paul....but that's OK, Paul probably wouldn't have liked them either.)
In fairness, we all have presuppositions when we look at a topic. My presupposition is simple: the Bible is God's Revelation to men, inspired and preserved by the Holy Spirit. Unless I am shown otherwise by solid reason and evidence, here I stand.
So here's a quick guide. Whenever you hear one of these guys quoted (Ehrman, Borg, Crossan) understand that they believe in a Bible that they change to say whatever they want.
