Biblical Mistakes (O. T.)

[anontheist]

Christian,

We have different beliefs.

Not all our beliefs are correct, there are times we are mistaken. So, how do we determine which beliefs are true or false?

We all think that all of our beliefs are in fact true or they would not be our beliefs.

Now the Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is true; Islam believes the Qur'an is true; Christians believe the Bible is true. But how do we determine if something is in fact the case?

If these books are in fact true, or from God, would we find any mistakes in them? If there are mistakes in any of them what would that mean about them?

If there were no mistakes in the Book of Mormon should we accept it? If there are no mistakes in the Qur'an, should we believe it? If there are mistakes in the Bible, should we reject it?

There are mistakes in the Bible. There are also answers to some of these mistakes. But the question is, are the answers given good answers or bad. Or are they simply weak justifications or rationalizations so one can continue to believe the Bible is the "Word of God"?

1. It has been suggested the original manuscripts, the autographs, were, Inerrant. But we do not have the original manuscripts. All we have are copies of copies of copies, (etc.) and all of the manuscripts we do posses contain mistakes. So, it is an assumption without any justification to suggest that the autographs were without mistakes. (Just a note: no two manuscripts that exist today are identical.)

2. One of the most common answers to the problems I will raise is it must have been copyists' error. Meaning that in the copying process of the manuscripts; human error tended to creep in. Now there are a couple of points to make about this response. 1. There is an unjustified assumption that the original did not have any mistakes; which there is no evidence for this. It is simply an assumption with no justification. 2. There is still an error. Even if it is a "copyists'" error it is still an error. (Note: "Error" and "mistake" are synonymous.)

3. Sometimes it is suggested that one cannot always interpret the BIble literally and that there are times when the Bible is being figurative. Of course the problem is, how do we determine when the Bible is being figurative and when it is not. This can be seen as a convenient means of rationalizing an obvious problem with the Bible. If reading the section of the Bible literally is problematic, then it must be read figuratively. But this would seem to be a rationalization.

4. It has also been suggested that perhaps the problem is that the verses are being taken out of context. But I would suggest that before this tactic is accepted, one take a look at the context for yourself and determine if such a problem really exists or if it is just a means of deflecting and rationalizing the issue.

5. Sometimes it seems that no matter what kind of answer is provided for a Biblical mistake the answer will simply be accepted by many because they wish to hold to the assumption that the Bible cannot be mistaken. But just because an answer is provided does not mean it is a good one. One must look at the mistake itself and determine for themselves whether this is a mistake or not. And whether the answer given really does solve the problem. And the most obvious question is, if there are mistakes, aside from the ones we find, how many mistakes are there that we are simply not aware of?

Apologists' tend to suggest that there are really no mistakes, but if there are mistakes they can easily be reconciled. It is easy to accept either of these points if you want to maintain your belief that the Bible is the "Word of God." (Note: you cannot accept both of these claims at the same time, that would be a contradiction.) But it is false to say there are no mistakes in the Bible or that the mistakes can easily be dealt with.

Here are just a few of the more interesting examples:

2 Chron. 36:9
Chapter 36 is about the reign of some of the last kings of Israel. This includes Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin. What is interesting is Jehoiachin is said to be eight (8) years old when he began his reign; (verse 9) he reigned three (3) months and ten (10) days in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD. So he lost his kingship.

How does an eight year old do evil in the sight of the Lord?

He was 8! Does it make sense for God to hold someone so young responsible for their actions?

Perhaps he was not really 8 years old. Perhaps he was actually 10 or 12 years old, but would that be old enough to be held responsible for their actions? 1. Would you give your 8 year old a kingdom to run? And then punish him if he fails to run it properly?

But again, perhaps he was older.

How do we know he was in fact 8 years old? The Bible, and specifically Chronicles says he was 8. But perhaps the Bible is mistaken.

2 Kings 24:8
Now we have the same story. Near the end of Chapter 23 deals with Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Chapter 24, verse 8 talks about Jehoiachin. Verse 8 starts with, "Jehoiachin was eighteen (18) years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months in Jerusalem..." verse 9, "He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord;..."

Ah! So, 2 Chron. 36:9 was mistaken. Or perhaps you prefer this particular version and think 2 Kings is the one that was mistaken.

Either way, both of them cannot be true. One cannot be 8 and 18 at the same time in the same place. So, you have a choice. Either Chron. is mistaken or Kings is mistaken or perhaps they are both wrong, but logically they cannot both be true. So, either way the Bible has mistakes.

Perhaps it is a copyist error. But if one looks up "error" in a dictionary one finds that one of the definitions will include the synonymous term "mistake." So, it is a copyist mistake. A copyist of the Bible. Therefore, the Bible has mistakes.

2 Samuel 24:18-25
Chapter 24 is about King David's Census of Israel and Judah. Starting in verse 10 we have the judgment on King David for this sin. So, starting in verse 18 we David building an altar on a threshing floor for this sin. David is going to buy this threshing floor from Araunah the Jebusite. In verse 24, David buys the oxen and threshing floor for fifty (50) shekels of silver. So, this seems clear enough. 50 shekels of silver for a threshing floor.

1 Chronicles 21:18-26
We have the same story here. Chapter 21 is about the census and the Plague. Now Ornan (?) the Jebusite is going to sell the threshing floor to David. In verse 25, David pays Ornan six hundred (600) shekels of gold, for the threshing floor. It is not so clear anymore.

One would be hard pressed to suggest that (50) looks like (600) or the silver and gold appear to be the same. So, we can see that either the author of Samuel is mistaken or the Chronicler is mistaken. Or perhaps they are both wrong. Perhaps this story never happened.

1 Kings7:15-21
Here we have two bronze pillars about 18 cubits (about 27 feet) high. One named Jachin on the south side. The other named Boaz on the north side. So, it is at least clear how tall these pillars were. (?)

2 Chronicles 3:15-17
And here we have the same story. Here we have two bronze pillars about 35 cubits (about 53 feet) high. The one on the right named Jachin, the one on the left named Boaz. Hmmm! Someone made a mistake. They cannot both be 18 cubits and 35 cubits at the same time. So here we hae a mistake.

1 Kings 5:16
Let us pick up the story at verse 13. King Solomon has made slaves of his people to build some of his projects. They are called "forced labor" in the NASB. In verse 15, 70,000 transporters, 80,000 hewers of stone are counted. in verse 16; 3,300 chief deputies who were over the project and who ruled over the people who were doing the work.

So, there are 3,300 overseers. Historically we know there were 3, 300 of these men. Or do we? The Bible is clear, there is no doubt, right?

2 Chron. 2:18
In 2 Chron. 2:18 we have the same story retold. There are 70,000 to carry loads and 80,000 to quarry stones. But the supervision was done by 3,600 men.

It is only a difference of 300 men. But I think one can still ask, how many men were there? A mistake of 300 men. Which account is correct? Or perhaps someone was rounding off in some strange way. So, we cannot always know if the Bible is simply being sloppy or if it is mistaken.

2 Chron. 9:25
In 2 Chron. 9:25, the King Solomon has 4,000 stalls. This is a big number. But the question is is this true? or is it made up? or is there some other number?

1 Kings 4:26
Here King Solomon has an amazing 40,000 horse stalls in 1 Kings 4:26. Can we bet on this being the correct number? Which of these accounts is correct?

Some apologists have suggested that the number in Chron. is at the beginning of King Solomon's reign and the number in Kings is at the end of his reign. But of course, there is nothing in the Bible that suggests such a thing. This is a kind of reading into the Bible in the hopes of correcting any possible errors.

Some have suggested that 4 and 40 look very similar in Hebrew. This may well be the case, but the fact remains, we have a mistake. We can still ask, which account is correct?

1 Kings 7:26 vs. 2 Chron. 4:5
So, were there 2,000 baths or are there 3,000?

2 Sam. 8:4 vs. 1 Chron. 18:4
How many horsemen were there?

2 Kings 8:26 vs. 2 Chron. 22:2
So, how old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? 22 or 42?

2 Sam. 6:23 vs. 2 Sam. 21:8
Now, there is the question of Michal. Does she have any children or not?

2 Sam. 24:9 vs. 1 Chron. 21:5
How many men drew a sword? Exactly how many, and if you are rounding out the number, in which direction are you going? Or perhaps we cannot even know the answer to these questions.

1 Sam. 31:4; 2 Sam. 21:12; 2 Sam. 1:10
By the way, how did King Saul die?

2 Sam. 24:9 vs. 1 Chron. 21:5
Again, how many men drew their swords?

One of the things I have noticed, is that when people are shown these mistakes, they tend to want to put words into the Bible that are simply not there. In other words, they do not want to read it literally at this point.

Another thing I have noticed; some translations change some of the verses so there are no longer mistakes. But as far as I understand these changes are without merit. They cannot say that these changes are justified by any of the existing manuscripts.

This is a short list, there are so many more that have not been mentioned. Now again, there are "answers" to these problems. But simply coming up with an answer does not always resolve the issue. One can ask, "Does the answer make any sense?" Or is it simply a means to rationalize a mistake? In other words are we trying to find a answer to an obvious mistake no matter how irrational?

These are the mistakes we have found. But a better question is, what about all of those we have not found or are unaware of? How many are there? And how do we know?

If you are interested in doing a little home work, look up Ezra Chapter 2 and compare the names and numbers with Nehemiah Chapter 7. You may find this quit interesting.

There are a few books that give a more exhaustive list of problems and mistakes in the Bible. Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide, and The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis McKinsey, http://www.prometheusbooks.com/. The Perfect Mirror?: The Question of Bible Perfection by Darrel G. Henschell, The Oak Hill Free Press, http://edwardtbabinski.us/catalog.html. And finally there is Dan Barker's book, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, http://ffrf.org/index.php.

So, is the Bible the "Word of God" or are we mistaken in believing this?

anon

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 70 by Tired of the Nonsense]

It would if He [The Great One] lets it. Point is, imho, scribal errors are pretty much insiginficant in the biblical scheme of things.


JW

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 70 by Tired of the Nonsense]

It would if He [The Great One] lets it. Point is, imho, scribal errors are pretty much insiginficant in the biblical scheme of things.


JW

So if a major prophet makes a long detailed prediction, and it fails utterly to occur, are we to consider this to simply be a scribal error? Or is there reason to suppose the fundamental nature of the claim that scripture is inerrant is open to question?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by anontheist]

Is your main point that unless a body of historical literature--ANY body of historical literature--is free of any discrepancy, none of it should be believed?

We have three or four historians that report on the Roman fire during Nero's reign. They all give disparate accounts of Nero's whereabouts during this fire--they are irreconciable. From this discrepancy, we should throw out everything these authors say about anything whatsoever.

Plutarch wrote two accounts of the same event: in one, he says that Pompey wrote something and had an emissary read it. In another, he describes Pompey as reading it himself. Should we therefore throw out everything Plutarch says about history?

Is that what you are arguing for?

Or are you holding the Bible (which is a collection of works by different authors from different times) to a different standard: that it has to be perfect in all its details for any of its details to be trusted? In which case, why?

[Danmark]

delete: duplicate post

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by anontheist]

Is your main point that unless a body of historical literature--ANY body of historical literature--is free of any discrepancy, none of it should be believed?
.... [examples of possible errors in non Biblical records redacted] ...
Or are you holding the Bible (which is a collection of works by different authors from different times) to a different standard: that it has to be perfect in all its details for any of its details to be trusted? In which case, why?

The 'why' is because the Bible as a whole, and the church in particular, claimed the Bible was perfect, without error, and is the work of an omniscient, omnipotent 'god.'

When a work like the Bible claims to be perfect and without error; claims it is actually the work of a perfect 'god,' then yes, known errors in it refute the claim that it is from an omniscient god and that it is without error, and refute the claim that it is perfect.

The Bible and the church are the ones who claim the Bible should be held to a higher standard because of their claim of perfection. The books of the Bible have value just as other literature has value. What is in dispute is not that the entire Bible should be ignored or otherwise considered useless.

Rather, the claim is that the Bible has no special claim of authority, perfection, authenticity, or value.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 70 by Tired of the Nonsense]

It would if He [The Great One] lets it. Point is, imho, scribal errors are pretty much insiginficant in the biblical scheme of things.


JW

Insignificant to you, but if people not so easily convinced were to disbelieve because of these scribal errors, then it becomes significant. It can only be considered insignificant if God doesn't care much about people believing the Bible. It sheds doubt on the validity of the text. A person with reason to doubt the validity of a text cannot be blamed for then doubting it.

So if these scribal errors, that can possibly result in someone becoming an unbeliever, are considered "insignificant" to God then it suggests that God considers losing believers to be just as insignificant.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 70 by Tired of the Nonsense]

It would if He [The Great One] lets it. Point is, imho, scribal errors are pretty much insiginficant in the biblical scheme of things.


JW

Insignificant to you.

Yes, I know. I can only speak for me, nobody has elected me master of any one elses faith. If someone believes that question of how many horses Solomon owned is pivitol to biblical understanding they are welcome to it.


JW

[Justin108]

Yes, I know. I can only speak for me, nobody has elected me master of any one elses faith. If someone believes that question of how many horses Solomon owned is pivitol to biblical understanding they are welcome to it.


JW

Not Biblical understanding. Biblical validity. It's not about whether it affects the proper understanding of the Bible, it's about the believability of the Bible. If believable claims like how many horses Solomon had are proven to be false, then how are we expected to believe the unbelievable claims?

I made this distinction clear in the response I posted, yet for some reason you chose to ignore my points.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 78 by Justin108]

Fine biblical validity. Personally I'm not bothered and don't discount the bible because someone "spilt their coffee" on a copy that told us how many horses Solomon had. That's my view and no, I'm not speaking for anyone else only myself.

And does God care? Maybe God doesn't want people that can't distinguish between major and minor details. Maybe he is using such things to distinguish between people that love truth and those that are desperate for an excuse to reject what they don't like.

Who know, not me!


JW

[Justin108]

Maybe he is using such things to distinguish between people that love truth and those that are desperate for an excuse to reject what they don't like.

If people were truly desperate for excuses then they would find faults in the Bible even if there were none. As it stands, though, there are faults in the Bible and you do not need to be desperate to find them.

"Truly love truth"? Would a person who truly loves truth not be even more critical in testing it rather than just accepting it? I would argue that one who truly loves truth are the ones who looks for faults as they want to be sure that they genuinely hold the truth. A true scientist looks for faults in his own hypothesis. Wouldn't you call a scientist a lover and seeker of truth?

desperate for an excuse to reject what they don't like.

So you're one of those theists that believe that atheists are only atheists because they dislike the Bible and don't want it to be true?