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

[youngborean]

so now satan is not a name but just a word to describe an enemy. I am sure if I were to go to another forum and ask another person they would give me a different answer. just the fact that no one can agree on what is said in the bible should prove that it is not divinely inspired. I am sure that if a god ever made a book that everyone would be able to understand it.

heres a better way to understand what satan is ,
You are my (in hebrew)"satan" and I am your "satan in this debate but that does not make you my enemy does it ?? It does not make you "good" and me bad .

This is a funny way to explain the Hebrew. Yes shin-tav-nun does mean "adversary". However, in Job and in Zachariah we see in the Hebrew the character translated (or transliterated) as Satan carries the definite article, pronnounced "HaSatan." The literal translation would now be "the Adversay" making it a definite name rather than a description that could or would be applied to anyone.

[sojouner]

Young borean

This is a funny way to explain the Hebrew. Yes shin-tav-nun does mean "adversary". However, in Job and in Zachariah we see in the Hebrew the character translated (or transliterated) as Satan carries the definite article, pronnounced "HaSatan." The literal translation would now be "the Adversay" making it a definite name rather than a description that could or would be applied to anyone.

And ???
The fact of the matter in Zechariah " HASATAN" is refering to the samaritans who were "the adversary" . They were adverse to the rebuilding of jerusalems walls etc .
In Job "the adversary" refers to one of the Almightys Holy angels becoming opposed to Job because of his (Jobs) selfrighteoussness. (which was the point to Jobs whole suffering , to bring it to the surface where it could be dealt with.)
So in actual fact Job was God's adversary in the first place which in turn makes God his adversary .
Even if "Hasatan" is refering to an angel it does not mean that that angel is evil. It is simply saying that someone or something is adverse to x or y.

[concerro]

Young borean

This is a funny way to explain the Hebrew. Yes shin-tav-nun does mean "adversary". However, in Job and in Zachariah we see in the Hebrew the character translated (or transliterated) as Satan carries the definite article, pronnounced "HaSatan." The literal translation would now be "the Adversay" making it a definite name rather than a description that could or would be applied to anyone.

And ???
The fact of the matter in Zechariah " HASATAN" is refering to the samaritans who were "the adversary" . They were adverse to the rebuilding of jerusalems walls etc .
In Job "the adversary" refers to one of the Almightys Holy angels becoming opposed to Job because of his (Jobs) selfrighteoussness. (which was the point to Jobs whole suffering , to bring it to the surface where it could be dealt with.)


So in actual fact Job was God's adversary in the first place which in turn makes God his adversary .
Even if "Hasatan" is refering to an angel it does not mean that that angel is evil. It is simply saying that someone or something is adverse to x or y.

NONDEBATE POINT
Which angel is the adversary(just a question)

DEBATE POINT:
Here we have two people, who I am assuming can read hebrew, which is probably a lot closer to the original text than any of the bibles I am able to read, and we still can't get an agreement on what the bible means. I see no reason why a perfect being cant make a perfectly understandable book, and since God is supposed to be allknowing it would make perfect sense to say that he knew the understanding of his words(teachings) would not last over hundres of years so why not update/correct the bible which is what some muslims say the koran is. I would never write a book and translate it into several languages over hundreds of years and expect for it to stay the same especially if peoples lives depended on it, but this fair and righteous being seems content in this decision.

Sojourn are you saying that Satan/devil does not exist or are you saying that he was never named. The fact that Satan is used as a name when it means adversary according to you is a mistake already unless you are only defending the version written in Hebrew.

[youngborean]

In Job, HaSatan (the Adeversary) stands to oppose Job who is favored by god. He (satan) also has access to god making him obviously supernatural in the context of Job. If Job was God's adversary, then why does it say:

Job 1:22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

In Zachariah, how is it the fact of the matter that HaSatan is the samaritans. In Chapter 3

Zec 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.


Zec 3:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: [is] not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

Is this the Fact of the Matter? Or, is your interpretation that this is Samaria? Clearly this is a supernatural context before the "Angel of the Lord". Seems pretty literal in context to me.

As for him being evil:

Psa 109:6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.

Whether or not this spiritual character represents a physical entity, like Samaria, is a seperate issue to the FACT that in the literary context of the Bible there is a spiritual Character called The Satan that appears in the later writings. This is evident by the attachment of the definite article He before the phrase otherwise it would be 'an adversary'.

Which angel is the adversary(just a question)

In a prophecy about the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 we get a possible candidate.

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.


Eze 28:14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.


Eze 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.


Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.


Eze 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.


Eze 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never [shalt] thou [be] any more.

Although the context in this chapter is clearly listed as the King of Tyre. There is an interesting Religious tradition that seems to be alluded to in verse 13. We all know the physical King of Tyre was not in Eden and was not an "annointed cherub" (one of the angels that flew around the vision of the Lord in Isaiah), so this does seem to be an allusion to some sort of angel in the Lord's bad book.

[Todd]

I've only just come into this topic and I noticed something.

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.

Angel, if you could I'd like to hear about these experiences in a little more detail. Could you please start a new topic to talk about witnessing such wonderful events?

[anontheist]

[Replying to post 65 by Todd]

Here is a good example of "it is not about evidence" it is about belief.

[JehovahsWitness]

If these books are in fact true, or from God, would we find any mistakes in them?

Scribal errors can't really be classified as "biblical errors" any more than if the copyist spilt his coffee on a contract, the writer can be sued for a faulty contract. With most scribal errors it can be determined what the original probably said and the rest are largly inconsequential in nature.

JW

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If these books are in fact true, or from God, would we find any mistakes in them?

Scribal errors can't really be classified as "biblical errors" any more than if the copyist spilt his coffee on a contract, the writer can be sued for a faulty contract. With most scribal errors it can be determined what the original probably said and the rest are largly inconsequential in nature.

JW

If the Bible is God inspired, why would God allow "scribal errors" to be included into His Word? This certainly SEEMS to be a case of recognizing that there are inaccuracies in the Bible, and then glossing them over as inconsequential. How does an inerrant God allow errors to occur in His God inspired book?

[JehovahsWitness]

If the Bible is God inspired, why would God allow "scribal errors" to be included into His Word?

Don't you mean why would scribal errors have been allowed to occur? Otherwise its like asking "if the contract is airtight, why would the copyist be allowed to spill his coffee on a copy?" which doesn't make much sense since a legally well written contract would not become inaccurate if someone spilt coffee on a copy.

The answer? I don't know. Stuff happens, no biggie in my opinion.

JW

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If the Bible is God inspired, why would God allow "scribal errors" to be included into His Word?

Don't you mean why would scribal errors have been allowed to occur? Otherwise its like asking "if the contract is airtight, why would the copyist be allowed to spill his coffee on a copy?" which doesn't make much sense since a legally well written contract would not become inaccurate if someone spilt coffee on a copy.

The answer? I don't know. Stuff happens, no biggie in my opinion.

JW

If one happens to be omnipotent and omniscient, "stuff" doesn't just happen.