I don’t read books that attempt to reconcile every tension found in the canon of Scripture for the simple reasons that (1) reality is often too complex and (2) language is too complex. So, for instance, when the Apostle Paul says we are saved by faith and not by works and James the Just says we are saved by works I do not see this as a contradiction. These phrases are shaped by authorial intent, intended audience, historical context, literary context, semantic range, speech act including the locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary, the preservation of the text (textual criticism), the shaping of a text in canon, the shaping of interpretation in tradition, the reader’s context and response, the criticisms and rebuttals over the ages, and the overall hermeneutical spiral that can never separate “meaning” from the interaction between the text and the reader in a given time, location, and context.
In other words: reading the Bible like a fundamentalist is a failure to understand the complexities of reading. Language is more than dictionary or lexical entries. Let’s get that straight.
Sadly, the so-called “Reason Project” has put together a massive chart of Bible contradictions that is as absurd and short sighted as a big book of Bible answers (Norm Geisler, that’s for you). While some people may get excited about this chart (see it here) it seems like a big waste of time. It is as much a waste a time as reading a chart of Bible answers.
It seems like the “Reason Project” is just another group of fundamentalist of an equal and opposite stripe. So much for using reason. Try again.