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

[ST88]

I am astounded that you people can make this into an issue. To preserve the Bible means to keep its contents from being changed (or "legendized", like Jesus being changed to a God from just being a Man).

Because we don't have the original documents, we can't say for certain whether or not a percieved "mistake" in the Bible -- which anontheist points out many -- is a mistake of the original document or a mistake of the copyists or translators. Not by tradition or by personal idealizing of the contents, but from Bible to Bible. Just for an example, the "abomination" of homosexuality may not necessarily refer to homosexuals, but may refer specifically to male protitutes, as per Quarkhead's post in the thread "Is being gay anti-God?". The word "homosexual" may not even be in the original version of the Bible, but because of the way certain English Bibles have been translated, it is in some of them.

Just because we don't know the meaning of the word means nothing.

I'm not sure I know what this means. If we don't know the meaning of the word, in or out of context, how can we be sure how it should be used?

[anontheist]

Emerson,

To preserve the Bible means to keep its contents from being changed...

But the Bible has been changed.

Of all the copies of all the manuscripts we have no two (2) are the same. There are some significant differences between many of the manuscripts.

Scholars go through painful debates as to what the original may have said. They do not always agree. And in part it sometimes has to do with their own theology and doctrine that may determine which they choose.

For example, if one looks at the NIV and compares it to say, NRSV, you will find some very interesting differences in translation. The NIV comes from a very conservative perspective where as the NRSV comes from a more ecumenical one. They are simply different on many points. Why?

Becuase they have a number of different manuscripts to make a choice as to which they think is more likely to be what the original says. But that is still a guess.

anon

[Arch]

The words do not mean anything different now. They mean the same things they meant when they were written. We just don't know what they mean.

Is that really an arguing point for the bible. It seems like one thats against the bible

No matter if the bible is change or everyone simply has an inability to know what it means equates to the same thing in the end.

WE CAN'T AND DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS ACCURATE OR EVEN TRUTHFUL

In order to be able to determine either we would need to understand it..ie know what it means with assurance and certainty. No one in this whole thread can affirm or adduce that outside of pure blind beliefs they can give undeniable credence in the fact that the bible is not only authentic but also 100 percent correct in its writing no matter if we are speaking about the original or it's copies.

By the way no one has seen the original scriptures of any major prophet, even at the time of Jesus this was true.

[Bill55AZ]

My high school algebra book had an error in it, does that mean that Algebra is all wrong? A simplistic approach, perhaps, but some use that approach to claim that the ENTIRE bible is fiction, and others will blind themselves to obvious contradictions and stubbornly cling to a meaningless point.
Most of the so-called mistakes in the Bible are of no relevance to the overall message, or the plan of salvation. Surely we believers can accept the obvious good parts and let others beat themselves silly worrying about proper translation, meanings of words, etc. We make ourselves look stupid fighting over minor points, while we should be spending our time doing what we are told to do by Christ himself.
MOST Christian churches have gone astray. Very few are following in the footsteps of Jesus when it comes to "feeding his sheep".
The deeds of Christianity are more important than the words. If we can't do the simple things that are asked of us, all the rest is of no value.

[concerro]

My high school algebra book had an error in it, does that mean that Algebra is all wrong? A simplistic approach, perhaps, but some use that approach to claim that the ENTIRE bible is fiction, and others will blind themselves to obvious contradictions and stubbornly cling to a meaningless point.
Most of the so-called mistakes in the Bible are of no relevance to the overall message, or the plan of salvation. Surely we believers can accept the obvious good parts and let others beat themselves silly worrying about proper translation, meanings of words, etc. We make ourselves look stupid fighting over minor points, while we should be spending our time doing what we are told to do by Christ himself.
MOST Christian churches have gone astray. Very few are following in the footsteps of Jesus when it comes to "feeding his sheep".
The deeds of Christianity are more important than the words. If we can't do the simple things that are asked of us, all the rest is of no value.

That is not the same thing. One mistake in an algebra book does not discount the rest of the book because it is not considered to be a divinely inspired and perfect book.
The bible is said by many to be perfect, therefore letting one mistake enter into the bible makes it imperfect and allows people to question the divinity of it. Also if the "christian god" is the one who inspired the bible there should be no minor parts. I am sure God would not waste time with unimportant things, and what are the obvious good parts?

ps (off topic) I would like for my edited post to be deleted since it is not really a post.

[Bill55AZ]

That is not the same thing. One mistake in an algebra book does not discount the rest of the book because it is not considered to be a divinely inspired and perfect book.
The bible is said by many to be perfect, therefore letting one mistake enter into the bible makes it imperfect and allows people to question the divinity of it. Also if the "christian god" is the one who inspired the bible there should be no minor parts. I am sure God would not waste time with unimportant things, and what are the obvious good parts?

ps (off topic) I would like for my edited post to be deleted since it is not really a post.

True, there are few obvious good parts in an Algebra book, but my point is that those who are seeking and dwelling on minor imperfections are nitpicking, whether they do it pro or con. The bible is said by many (whoever they are) that it is perfect, but that does not make it perfect. A lie, or error, repeated a billion times does not make it true. It just makes more of us believe the lie. And why can there not be any minor parts? Man did play a part in the building of the bible, man selected what books and letters would be included, and what would be excluded. If their understanding was less than perfect, it is possible, even likely that minor works were included and more important works left out.
Surely the begatting sections are more historical background than relating to salvation. Sounds like some of us want to glorify every word whether it is relevant or not. I submit that Christians should build a good foundation in the NT first, specifically those portions that tell us how to live, how to treat each other, the actual words and teachings of Christ. If we can't do that, it is likely that the claim of being a Christian is false and in vain. I hope that we don't have to stand at the judgement bar and be asked why we did not help our neighbors in need and expect God to accept, "But, I was too busy studying the mysteries and trying to work the details into something relevant!". Sometimes you really can't see the forest for all the trees.

[concerro]

That is not the same thing. One mistake in an algebra book does not discount the rest of the book because it is not considered to be a divinely inspired and perfect book.
The bible is said by many to be perfect, therefore letting one mistake enter into the bible makes it imperfect and allows people to question the divinity of it. Also if the "christian god" is the one who inspired the bible there should be no minor parts. I am sure God would not waste time with unimportant things, and what are the obvious good parts?

ps (off topic) I would like for my edited post to be deleted since it is not really a post.

True, there are few obvious good parts in an Algebra book, but my point is that those who are seeking and dwelling on minor imperfections are nitpicking, whether they do it pro or con. The bible is said by many (whoever they are) that it is perfect, but that does not make it perfect. A lie, or error, repeated a billion times does not make it true. It just makes more of us believe the lie. And why can there not be any minor parts? Man did play a part in the building of the bible, man selected what books and letters would be included, and what would be excluded. If their understanding was less than perfect, it is possible, even likely that minor works were included and more important works left out.
Surely the begatting sections are more historical background than relating to salvation. Sounds like some of us want to glorify every word whether it is relevant or not. I submit that Christians should build a good foundation in the NT first, specifically those portions that tell us how to live, how to treat each other, the actual words and teachings of Christ. If we can't do that, it is likely that the claim of being a Christian is false and in vain. I hope that we don't have to stand at the judgement bar and be asked why we did not help our neighbors in need and expect God to accept, "But, I was too busy studying the mysteries and trying to work the details into something relevant!". Sometimes you really can't see the forest for all the trees.

The bible (a selection of books) as far as I understand was supposedly written and compiled by men led by God so the original should only have had the books God wanted, unless christians are now saying individual books were inspired and in the attempt to put them together there were human errors and maybe incorrect books were chosen/ not chosen and in that case how do we know which ones are correct and which ones are not?
And if God insist on people follwing his laws why would he allow people to make an incorrection guide/instruction book knowing it would mislead others and/or make some people deny him altogether.

[Bill55AZ]

The bible (a selection of books) as far as I understand was supposedly written and compiled by men led by God so the original should only have had the books God wanted, unless christians are now saying individual books were inspired and in the attempt to put them together there were human errors and maybe incorrect books were chosen/ not chosen and in that case how do we know which ones are correct and which ones are not?
And if God insist on people follwing his laws why would he allow people to make an incorrection guide/instruction book knowing it would mislead others and/or make some people deny him altogether.

I haven't kept up with all the NEW Bibles, just use the old Scofield Reference KJ version. The original compilation was done by a group of men who decided what is or is not acceptable. Not everyone was happy with the result. Over time, some books were dropped. Catholics currently have more books in their bible than do Protestants. Martin Luther wanted James removed from the NT, all the more reason to read it and find out what he found so objectionable. I personally see no reason to have Song of Solomon, and believe that Revelations was written by a different John than most other think. I am thinking John the Lunatic is most likely. Many scholars find it out of place and inconsistent with the rest of the NT.
Much of the Bible, IMO, is irrelevant, or background information, or so embellished as to make some believers blush when they insist that it is all relevant and all true. And there are books mentioned in the Bible that we don't have. So it is probably incomplete? What if we find some more manuscripts that seem a perfect fit? or find some that when translated end up correcting/changing some parts of existing information?
That would certainly upset the many who insist that there can be nothing added to the Bible. What is the reason for that?
Pre-emptive strike here, just because I am saying that there are some parts that, to me, are meaningless or wrong, does not mean that I am throwing mine out tomorrow. There is still much for me to learn from it.

[ST88]

I haven't kept up with all the NEW Bibles, just use the old Scofield Reference KJ version.

How do you feel about new translations from the same documents that the KJV was translated from, such as the New Revised Standard Version? Would you call them unnecessary alternatives or interesting for study, but ultimately irrelevant or something else? I'm not asking for your opinion on the versions themselves, but on the idea that there are other versions.

Since others have asked how you can tell which parts are relevant and which aren't, I will refrain from asking you that. But I would like to know why you settled on this particular version of the Bible.

[Bill55AZ]

I chose the King James version because it is what was accepted for a long, long time. I feel the newer versions have been re-written with a slant towards supporting/re-inforcing a lot of the errors and misconceptions that have crept in since the time of Christ. Not that I have a lot of proof of that, and I accept that some of the mistakes exist in the King James version as well, but there were a LOT of people over the years who have said that we shouldn't be messing with the word of God, yet now we how many versions?
BTW, the biggest gripe I have is the concept that we are saved by grace alone. Martin Luther tried to insert the word "alone" into the scriptures, and wanted the book of James removed from the bible because it conflicts with his opinion. Not that it would matter, those who want to support their opinions can always find words in the Bible to do just that.