Biblical errors.

[Elijah John]

someone recently said:

there are no biblical errors

For debate, perhaps we can list a few. And having done so, will the supporters of the quoted statement above revise the statement? Will they admit that the Bible is, in fact, not perfect?

Or will they maintain their claim of Biblical perfection in spite of evidence to the contrary?

I'll start with a few general assertions to the contrary,

a) The Bible has internal contradictions, some important, some minor.
b) The Bible sometimes contradicts what we know about science.

And finally, if the Bible is less than perfect, does that mean it is useless as a source of life-guidance or as a source of Spiritual inspiration?

Or to put it another way, why defend the supposed perfection of the Bible in light of contrary evidence?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to theophile]

I certainly share your view of Scripture. However, it should be recognized that our shared POV came from modern biblical scholarship and its challenge to the inerrancy theory, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, etc.

As I indicated already, the big thing about the different orders is that this alerts scholars to the fact there are two very different stories here. You cannot read Gen. 2, which is probably order anyway, as a continuation of gen. 1, which was and has been done, and with some interesting results on how many wives Adam actually had. I can go into that if you want. Another difference is that 2 much more clearly marks off the woman as a companion to man, the animals having been found worthless companions.

[1213]

a) Two differing creation stories.
b) The earth is spherical.

I don’t think that is true (two different creation stories). The first creation story tells about how Elohim created and the second is how Yahweh formed certain things.

God [translated from word Elohim] created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27

Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Genesis 2:7-8

If we are literal, those can be different stories that are at the same time true.

It is not Bibles fault, if people make bad interpretations or define words later so that it would look bad for the Bible. Or what would you think if I, after you have said something, define the words differently so that you would seem to be insane?

Bible doesn’t claim that planet earth is flat. It doesn’t even mean with earth the whole planet, just the dry land.

God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:10

So, the conclusion is, you didn’t bring any examples of Biblical contradiction, but contradiction between some ideas people have. I think the same is with all alleged contradictions. But thank you for trying and showing the situation. It is always interesting to see people’s futile attempts against the Bible. If the book would be only from humans, I would expect that people can show it wrong more easily.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to 1213

I beg to disagree. Genesis offers two contradictory accounts of creation. See my comments below:

When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk� (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,� based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,� So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith� written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

In my experience, this is an area where people tend to see what they want to see. Some people refuse to entertain the notion that there could be a contradiction within the Christian scriptures. Others are so desperate in their opposition to Christianity that they will cling the slightest glimmer of inconsistency, even if they would never see it that way in any other writing.

I do not think that anyone is immune to bias in this area. For my own part, I admit my bias is against contradictions being in the scriptures.

I do not think that the Bible ever contradicts science, unless we say that miracles are contradicting science or that every word must be viewed as precisely literal. Such cases involve the individual misusing the Bible to fit their ends and cannot rightly be considered a weakness of the Bible itself. Since the Bible makes no attempt to be a science textbook, and was written before the modern concept of science existed, this issue does not come into play often.

I understand that there are a few internal discrepancies between the accounts in 1 & 2 Kings and the accounts in 1 & 2 Chronicles. They are on such minor details that it is hard for me to work up any strong response to them. I just don’t care in what year of Asa’s reign it was that Baasha died. It does not change anything meaningful about the text, flow of the story, or my understanding of God. If this is what destroys someone’s faith in God then I would suggest that they never had a faith that was worth destroying to begin with.

You make some good points here. I agree that the Bible is not to be considered a science textbook, though some seem to view it that way. Nor is it a source of reliable history, but rather it is a faith account of a people's encounter with a powerful entiity who they see as the Creator, God. I think we are on solid ground when we consider the Bible a source of Spiritual inspiration and guide for living an ethical life.

Also, I agree that critics should not be so concerned with minor contradictions, such as contradictory numbers of soldiers, horses, etc.

Here are a few major ones though:

-The institution of blood sacrifice in Leviticus, vs the Prophetic teaching that God prefers mercy and repentance instead of sacrifice.

-The author of Hebrews proclaiming that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins" vs, John the Baptist performing "baptisms of repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins'

But those who claim perfection for the Bible must defend the minor contradictions as well...or the Bible is less than perfect, at least in it's publication and transmission.

[theophile]

[Replying to hoghead1]

I certainly share your view of Scripture. However, it should be recognized that our shared POV came from modern biblical scholarship and its challenge to the inerrancy theory, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, etc.

But it should also be noted that those "theories" are not biblical either. The bible doesn't stand or fall because of them.

As I indicated already, the big thing about the different orders is that this alerts scholars to the fact there are two very different stories here. You cannot read Gen. 2, which is probably order anyway, as a continuation of gen. 1, which was and has been done, and with some interesting results on how many wives Adam actually had. I can go into that if you want. Another difference is that 2 much more clearly marks off the woman as a companion to man, the animals having been found worthless companions.

I don't think Gen 2 calls the animals "worthless" companions. Rather, not suitable, i.e., not equal to man, and able to truly partner with him as he needs.

I agree they are separate stories. I think they can be read continuously, hence why the redactor put them together. But they can also be read as separate, independent accounts. Different in aspects, yes, but not necessarily in teaching that matters. Which is what you've yet to show (if you care to).

You bring up woman's relationship to man. This is something that matters. Can you tell me how Gen 2 is necessarily different from Gen 1 in how man and woman are to actually relate? Not just timing of their creation, which says nothing in itself..

For example, you could argue that in being created after Adam in Gen 2, Eve is subordinated to Adam. Versus Gen 1, where they have an equal standing. That would be a difference that matters.

The problem you'll run into is an argument that actually sees Eve as the dominant one. The language used of her (i.e., helper) which is typically only used of God in relation to man, thus putting her on a footing with God. The fact that she is the decision maker and drives the whole narrative... Yes, she ends up subordinated. In the twisting of the male-female relationship through the fall. But did she really start out that way? ....

I see Gen 2 further articulating the male-female relationship, but certainly not contradicting or compromising anything that Gen 1 says...

[hoghead1]

[Replying to theophile]

Well, of course, the theories aren't "biblical," whatever that means. But certainly our understanding of Scripture does in fact stand or fall because of them.

OK. maybe "worthless" isn't always the right word.

Read as one continuous account? I don't think so. Below are my reasons.






















\//





When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk� (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,� based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,� So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith� written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 26 by hoghead1]

Well, of course, the theories aren't "biblical," whatever that means. But certainly our understanding of Scripture does in fact stand or fall because of them.

It means the bible does not explicitly state these things. Much like it never explicitly states that God is "omnipotent." That means these theories are at best abstractions of what the bible does say, and as such, do not, if rejected, do not necessarily require rejection of the bible or biblical teaching.

It means, maybe, we need to think again.

Read as one continuous account? I don't think so. Below are my reasons.

I've already admitted the differences. So clearly, if reading them continuously, you need to loosen up a bit. The redactor, again, clearly didn't think the differences were worth smoothing over.

Note that I also said that they provide independent, distinct accounts. And can be read separately. They don't require each other (as much as I think they inform each other).

So again, you've yet to indicate a difference that really matters in all this.

For example, you bring up woman's relationship to man. This is something that matters. Can you tell me how Gen 2 is necessarily different from Gen 1 in how man and woman are to actually relate? Not just timing of their creation, which says nothing in itself..

You could argue that in being created after Adam in Gen 2, Eve is subordinate to him. Versus Gen 1, where they have an equal standing. That would be a difference that matters. It would put Gen 1 and 2 in stark contrast in terms of how man and woman are to relate.

The problem you'll run into with this, though, is an argument that actually sees Eve as the dominant one in Gen 2. The language used of her (i.e., helper) is typically only used of God in relation to man, thus putting her on a footing with God. Also, the fact that she is the decision maker and drives the whole narrative is hardly putting her in a subordinate role! Yes, she ends up subordinated, through the twisting of the male-female relationship that happens with the fall. But did she really start out that way? ...

I see Gen 2 further articulating the male-female relationship, but certainly not contradicting or compromising anything that Gen 1 says...

Again, not a difference that matters. I think both Gen 1 and Gen 2 actually show man and woman on an equal footing. Creation order notwithstanding.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to theophile]

In the main, I agree with what you say about the male-female relationship. Where I disagree, I guess, with your post is that I think all the differences, especially the order of creation, do matter. There are many ways one can approach, read, enjoy, and get something profound out of Scripture. I don't know your background or interests, but let me share brief bit about mine. I am coming out of a strongly intellectual background. I initially thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies, but then decided on theology. (In academia, biblical studies, theology, church history, ethics are separate areas of specialty.) So I am very interested in major issues such as the literary structure of the texts, who wrote Scripture, when, where, what was the role of God in the writing, what was the role of the scribes, is it historically reliable, etc. So for me, yes, differences in the order of creation do matter.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 7 by hoghead1]

Goliath was killed by David. It's a known copyist error. I would be interested to know how long it has been know though if anyone can answer that.

The second reference to genesis is even less concerning. Are you sure you want to make hay out of that?

The Bible's inerrancy is not about spelling mistakes or copying mistakes, it's about its ability to withstand poor translations and multiple translations and still deliver the gospel message.

Just note your language: 'sweep it away', 'dance all over'. Language is our only access to learning and if we mentally block ourselves by locking our mind down then we will only ever learn what we want to. Most contradictions in the bible aren't and are also well known and were found by Christians to begin with.

What's a real Bible error? Or what other favourites do people have?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 29 by Wootah]

Biblical inerrancy means that there are no errors whatsoever in the Bible. So, finding a copyist's error does in fact challenge the inerrancy of Scripture. A copyist
s error is still an error. To preserve the inerrancy of Scripture, many biblical translations, except for some modern ones, seriously tampered with the text, adding in "brother of," before the name Goliath, in the passage in 2 Sam. 21:19, in order to make the contradiction disappear.

Also, the scribal-error explanation of 2 Sa. 21:19 does not satisfy everyone. It certainly does not satisfy me. My POV is that David had his scribes write puff pieces about himself, considerably spin-doctoring the records. The truth managed to break free in 2 Sam. 21:19.

As to Genesis, see below for my comments on the contradiction there and how people have tried to dance around it.






When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk� (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,� based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,� So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith� written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.