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

[concerro]

Truly, no one can prove that their are mistakes in the bible, and for me any way I Know that Christianity is true because with my own eyes I have seen people healed, I just got back from a missionary trip, I helped heal a woman of a kidney problem, an saw a woman with an eye problem get healed. For me, the way you know if your belief is real or not is by feeling and seeing, I've seen an angel, I've been in the presence of God and I've seen him heal people. And ever sence I became a Christian, I've felt complete, before I felt I was always missing something.

If I show you a contradiction in the bible and in your religion and no one can give me a logical answer that is my proof.

[anontheist]

Christian,

Why did I start this post?

People act based on their beliefs.

How people act will affect me. For example, how one votes, who one elects, the creation of laws, the election of school board members, etc.

If peoples beliefs are not based on reality, or on false assumptions (or superstition and mythology), then the actions they choose could be wrong or even harmful.

So, the issue for me is, what is true?

Now even though we know that most of the books of the Bible were written anonymously; that we do not have any of the original documents of any of the books of the Bible; that it was written in ancient dead languages and translation is rather hard and conflictual; even though none of the manuscripts we have are identical; and that the Bible's development (how the books of the Bible were brought together) would tend to undermine its reliability; and that in early church history anything critical of Christianity was sought out and destroyed (and that the church was not always honest), people still choose to believe it is the "Word of God."

This post was an attempt to show that the Bible is simply of Human origin. That it is mythology not unlike Homer's Iliad or Odyssey. It is a history (some of it true, some perhaps exaggerated) mixed with the mythology of a God.

I did not give exhaustive examples since my point was only to show that the Bible does have some mistakes and problems. But I thought that perhaps this coupled with modern critical biblical scholarship (which I have not presented here) would demonstrate that the Bible is in fact simply something an ancient Semitic people wrote.

But looking at some of the responses, I am beginning to think that perhaps I am going about this the wrong way.

Perhaps I should ask the question, why do you believe the Bible to be true?

What evidence do you have for believing the BIble?

Would the evidence or methodology exclude the 'Qur'an' or 'The Book of Mormon'?

Would the evidence or methodology exclude such writings as the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha or the other 28 Gospels we have recently found?

Is there counter evidence? If so, what is it?

Where did the evidence come from? And how do we know it is reliable? etc.

A debate is someone attempting to prove something and someone else is attempting to prove them wrong, or perhaps counter the arguments or perhaps show the opposite.

I prefer something more philosophical or even Socratic. I am simply attempting to discover what is in fact the case or what is in fact true.

Then the question is what do we do if we discover that the evidence is counter to our beliefs?

Just a note: Having once believed and having been a Christian for about 12 years, I found that the evidence was rather overwhelming and painful.

anon

[bernee51]

Truly, no one can prove that their are mistakes in the bible,

Angel - the bible itself sets out its mistakes and contradictions. So anyone can prove the bible is mistaken - simply by reading it.

and for me any way I Know that Christianity is true because with my own eyes I have seen people healed,

but you cannot know that Xtianity was the source of that healing. You can believe it to be true - that does not make it so.

For me, the way you know if your belief is real or not is by feeling and seeing,...

that makes it 'real' for you but for no other

And ever sence I became a Christian, I've felt complete, before I felt I was always missing something.

that may be so but it is no proof of the existence of a god nor the inerrancy of the bible.

I am pleased though that you have this feeling of completeness. i do as well - and in full knowledge that the god of the christian bible is a myth

kind regards, bernie

[anontheist]

t,

This is what you have suggested about 2 Chron. 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8:

That is, he began his reign at eight years old, and reigned ten years when his father was alive, and after his father's death, which was in his eighteenth year, he reigned alone three months and ten days. The verse before states
2Ch 36:8 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.
If his son reigned in his stead that would be after his fathers death and he would have then been 18 and not 8 when the Lord took his kingship away.

Let us look at the verse itself and see if what you are suggesting is true.

2 Chron. 36:8+9 (NRSV)
"Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim and the abominations that he did, and what was found against him, are written in the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah; and his son Jehoiachin succeeded him."
"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD."

The term "succeeded" Is used in the NRSV; REB; NAB; NJB; NIV.

Now verses 5 through 7 make no suggestion that Jehoiachin started his reign while his father was King. (?)

2 Kings 24:8
"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem."

So, now I am curious. Where in the BIble does it suggest what you have offered as an explanation?

It seems you are willing to accept any possible answer if it removes the problem. But suppose the explanation did in fact answer the problem, (it obviously doesn't, but suppose it did) that would be one answer for one problem. What about all the other mistakes?

Do not accept an explanation because it is offered. It may be hard, but look at the answers from a critical thinking perspective. That might allow for more objectivity

anon

[ST88]

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.)

I don't think you can so easily dismiss the copyist error explanation. The original word is supposed to be the Word of God, not the copies. There is no doctrine of God guiding the copyists' hands. Many of the examples cited about numbering mistakes can easily be explained by copyist error.

The example with Jehoiachin being either eight or eighteen -- the Hebrew numbering system is similar to the Roman numbering system, where letters are used to represent numbers and multiples of numbers. However, sometimes the letters used to represent numbers actually spell out Hebrew words. If these words are sacred enough, then different spellings of the numbers are made.

The number 18 is such a number. Written according to the Hebrew rule for writing numbers, the number 18 spells out the ancient Hebrew word for life. Because of this, the letters used in making the number, chet and yod are often reversed. If a copyist coming across this kind of transposition does not realize this or does not recognize this when it occurs, it is not difficult to imagine he would make the error and copy "eight" (chet) instead of "eighteen" (chet yod).

Not only this, but Kings 1 & 2 was created during a time of transition in the Hebrew language. In the 6th century BCE, the Hebrew alphabet transitioned from the early Aramaic to Square Hebrew. There would have been a number of opportunities for error just from this alphabet shift alone.

Complicating matters, there apparently existed a preference for one form of the written language over the other, depending on the purpose.

some centuries before Christ the Aramaic forms began to make their way into Palestine, and by the end of the second century the Old Hebrew script was discarded by the Jews. The explanation of this complete disappearance may possibly lie in an early conception that the Aramaic was sacred and the old Hebrew secular.

and this is also interesting for the copyist argument:

several of the Psalms are known in which the name of deity (the tetragrammaton Yhwh) is written in the early character, but evidently copied mechanically by a scribe who did not understand it.

Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

[anontheist]

ST88,

I don't think you can so easily dismiss the copyist error explanation. The original word is supposed to be the Word of God, not the copies. There is no doctrine of God guiding the copyists' hands. Many of the examples cited about numbering mistakes can easily be explained by copyist error.

An error is an error, copyist or not. They are in the Bible, therefore the Bible has mistakes in it.

An error is synonymous with mistake.

What is the evidence that would support such a claim that the originals were without error? Since we do not have any originals I would suggest there is no evidence. Such a claim is simply conjecture.

And what about such verses as the following?

2 Samuel 24:18-25
vs.
1 Chronicles 21:18-26

anon

[ST88]

I don't think you can so easily dismiss the copyist error explanation. The original word is supposed to be the Word of God, not the copies. There is no doctrine of God guiding the copyists' hands. Many of the examples cited about numbering mistakes can easily be explained by copyist error.

An error is an error, copyist or not. They are in the Bible, therefore the Bible has mistakes in it.

What is the evidence that would support such a claim that the originals were without error? Since we do not have any originals I would suggest there is no evidence. Such a claim is simply conjecture.

You may suggest it, just as I may suggest that a lost Archimedes scroll has errors in it. There is just no evidence for or against it. This is the point, isn't it? Both sides argue from conjecture.

We may infer previous documents from different translations, and there have even been assertions that some of the gospels were based on each other and still other accounts including a "master account", which scholars call the Q document. This is generally referred to as the Synoptic Problem. The point is that there is evidence for documents that are no longer in existence.

At least one scholar that I can find has said that this translation problem is irredeemable:

“We will never be able to attain the sacred writings as they gladdened the eyes of those who first saw them, and rejoiced the hearts of those who first heard them. If the external words of the original were inspired, it does not profit us. We are cut off from them forever. Interposed between us and them is the tradition of centuries and even millenniums.” Dr. C. A. Briggs., “Critical Theories of the Sacred Scriptures in Relation to their Inspiration,”

And what about such verses as the following?

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.

Here is the generally accepted explanation:
In Samuel, the author (Nathan or Gad or someone else), concentrates on the effects of sin on the nation of Israel and its leaders, and so focuses on the alleviation of the sin -- the offering place.

1 Samuel 24:24
And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.

bold mine

In Chronicles, the author (Ezra) is primarily concerned with the heritage of the chosen people and their law, so he focuses on the land upon which the temple which will be built.

1 Chronicles 21:22
Then David said to Ornan, Grant me the place of this threshingfloor, that I may build an altar therein unto the LORD

and

1 Chronicles 21:25
So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.

bold mine

Therefore, the story in Samuel focuses on the "first" purchase, that of the oxen and the threshing floor, which costs 50 sheckels (s). The story in Chronicles, concerned with heritage and law, records the second purchase of the land around the threshing floor, which the author calls "the place" or "the site" (NAS). This would naturally be worth more than just the threshing floor and the oxen: 600 sheckels (g).

[adherent]

Seems to me some person might just have typo'd instead of the books being in contradiction from conception. Who knows if the typo'd mistake was not made in the few years after the Gutenberg press. I mean, some young apprentice might have easily misplaced the print letters. Numbers are easy to make mistakes on, its the core ideas of christianity (if they are in contradiction) that woul dmake me worried.

[Emerson]

Hare's do not chew cud.

You are using our current English language to interpret a book translated 400 years ago. Unless I am wrong, which I could be, in 1611, to chew the cud meant to eat your own waste. Anyway, we don't know that the correct translation should be hare, because the word 'arnebeth', is an unknown animal, and when the translators could not agree, they put hare.

I'd answer a lot of the stuff in the first post, but I am really busy tonight, and a lot of them looked familiar as I skimmed through them. I don't know of any Biblical errors that do not come from taking something out of context, different meanings of words from 1611-today or misunderstanding. I'll check them out tomorrow though.

[bernee51]

to chew the cud meant to eat your own waste.

actually cud is food of a ruminant regurgitated to be chewed again. Cows, for example, are ruminants. So are bulls.

The excrement of bulls is definitely not cud...but it is a term that could be said to describe a lot that is written in the name of {insert name of favourite deity}'

'arnebeth', is an unknown animal, and when the translators could not agree, they put hare.

but the bible is the inspired word of god...how could god have made such a mistake?