Bible Maps

I was looking for a map the other day. I wanted to find out how tall the mountains were around my house. So I looked at the climate map and found out what the climate is like in my area. I looked at the road map and found out the roads that access my area. I looked at the physical map and found that there were mountains in my area, along with some hills, a canal, and a lake, but not how tall. Then I looked at a topographical map and, at last, I found out how tall these mountains were.

I was disturbed by this exercise. I would like to think that the maps that are available were trustworthy. Obviously they're not. The climate map didn't show me any roads, for instance, but the road map said there were lots of them. Clearly a contradiction! Of course, the climate map was obviously lying as well. You see, I live here and nowhere do I see those large swaths of colors (you know, red, orange, yellow, all that) where I live. So that map was clearly wrong. I couldn't trust the physical map either, because, while it showed me mountains, they were all ... flat. Everyone knows mountains aren't flat. And I know the streets I drive, so why weren't they on the topographical map. Obviously no one makes a map that I can trust ... right?

Of course, I'm being willfully ignorant. Everyone knows that these maps don't contradict each other. They are all correct even though they present different information. The reason they all differ is that they are trying to present different information. The cartographers had differing intent and focus, so the maps represent the individual intent and focus. And the only way to read these individual maps is to know first what the focus is and then know the convention that the cartographer is using. In the climate map, for instance, you had to first know that the intent and focus was the typical, general temperatures of the area. Then you had to know that orange is hotter than yellow and red is hotter than orange and so forth. (Trust me. I live in Arizona. My region never sees blues, whites, or any of those "cool" colors.) Now the map is generally correct, tells me what the map maker intended to convey, and provides useful information. It is not the same information the other types of maps provide.

The Bible is a lot like this. In the Bible we have 66 books written by a variety of authors with a variety of intents and foci (focuses, if you will). There is a general intent throughout -- telling about God and His work in our world. But each one also has some other purposes as well. In every case the intent is pretty obvious. Sometimes there are multiple goals at work, but it's not hard to figure these things out. Some give narratives of historical events to tell about what God was doing. The point was not the historical events. The point was what God was doing. Thus, you won't hear much about the Hittite Empire, for instance, because, well, that wasn't the point. God was working with Israel. That's the point. Does this make the Bible inaccurate? No, no more so than the climate map was inaccurate when it failed to show roads. Sometimes you will read events expressed phenomenologically. (I like that word. It means expressing things as they appear.) So when Joshua 10:13 says, "The sun stood still, and the moon stopped," there is no need to think that this is expressing a scientific phenomenon. It is simply explaining what an event looked like. In other words, you have to ask what the author intended to convey. (Remember, the intent is to convey God at work.) It was expressed in a way that the readers of the day could understand. It is not, therefore, any more inaccurate than the physical map was when it showed flat mountains. One of the popular attacks on the Bible today is in the harmony of the Gospels. Clearly they contradict ... right? I mean, was Jesus quiet on the cross like Luke portrays or did He cry out like Mark portrays? If you keep the maps in mind, you'll find that they don't contradict any more than the topographical map contradicts the road map. They are presenting the intent and focus of the particular author and offer differing, but equally accurate views. (Note: The concept of "harmony" in music is not that each person sings the same note, but that each person singing different notes work together to make a whole sound. This is the same sense in which the Gospels are harmonized.)

Lots of skeptics like to take the Bible to task. Why are there variations? How can anyone understand it? Obviously there are scientific errors! The problem is that these skeptics are failing, even refusing, to read the Bible as it is written. It is not a science book. It is not even a history book. It is a book about God. If you take the time to understand the various approaches and intents of the authors, it turns out that there are no genuine contradictions, no passages impossible to understand, no errors. Instead, you get a chorus of voices with a diverse set of approaches painting a vivid picture of God's work in the world, all with a view to the apex of His work, His Son. It takes real effort to twist these things ... like I did above when all the maps were wrong! It takes willful ignorance.