Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Bible questions~ Only #4,9, & 17 left?


Coach Williams

Recommended Posts

Unfortuantely I read the 1001 biblical contradictions book BEFORE I read any parts of the Bible throughly, so natually I have developed a confused perception of how things are.

If you do know the answer to one of the follwing please # it so I know which one you're talking about......I will re color the Solved questions BLUE until they are all answered......

This site here http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm Help answer MOST and it only covers 101 contradictions.

I am researching my own questions still so don't think I'm posting this to be lazy btw...I just need some help.....

I actually have researched and found answers to nearly everyone of the contraditions presented EXCEPT the following......

_____________________________________________________________

#1 I just don't get this......

The Slaying of Goliath

Any child with an exposure to Christian education would have heard of the story of David and Goliath. David was the Hebrew hero who slew the Philistine giant Goliath. This story comes from the first book of Samuel:

I Samuel 17:23, 50

the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name...David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone and struck the Philistine and killed him.

In the second book of Samuel we have an entirely different account of the slaying of Goliath:

II Samuel 21:19

And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Joareoregim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite.

Gittite means "man of Gath". So it is the same Goliath that was described as being slain in both I and II Samuel. In the former, David was the giant killer, in the latter it was Elhanan. So at least one of these verses must be false. Who slew Goliath: David or Elhanan? This inconsistency was so obvious to the translators for the King James Bible (or "The Authorized Version") that in an act of dishonest piety they actually rewrote the verse in II Samuel 21:19 to read as

Elhanan, the son of Joareoregim, the Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite

Of course, the words "the brother of" are not found in the ancient manuscripts and has been supplied by the translators from a similar verse in the Bible (I Chronicles 20:5). Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that there exists two contradictory accounts of the slaying of Goliath in the Bible.

The discrepancy as to who killed Goliath (David or Elhanan) was caused by copyist or scribal error, which can be seen clearly.

The text of 2 Samuel 21:19 reads as follows:

"In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

As this stands in the Hebrew Masoretic text, this is a certainly a clear contradiction to 1 Samuel and its account of David's slaying of Goliath. However, there is a very simple and apparent reason for this contradiction, as in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles 20:5 shows. It describes the episode as follows:

"In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

When the Hebrew for these sentences is examined, the reason for the contradiction becomes quite obvious and the latter 1 Chronicles is seen to be the true and correct reading. This is not simply because we know David killed Goliath, but also because of the language.

When the scribe was duplicating the earlier manuscript, it must have been blurred or damaged at this particular verse in 2 Samuel. The result was that he made two or three mistakes (see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 179):

1. The sign of the direct object in 1 Chronicals was '-t which comes just before "Lahmi" in the sentence order. The scribe mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got BJt hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it.

2. He misread the word for "brother" ('-h , the h having a dot underneath it) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Therefore he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" instead of "brother" of Goliath, as in 1 Chronicles.

3. The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his family name (ben Y-'-r-y'-r--g-ym, ben ya'arey 'ore-gim, "the son of the forest of weavers", a most improbable name for anyone's father). In Chronicles the ore-gim ("weavers") comes straight after men\r ("a beam of") - thus making perfectly good sense.

To conclude: the 2 Samuel passage is an entirely traceable error on the part of the copyist in the original wording, which has been preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5. David killed Goliath.

This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized error, this has not been done in favour of remaining true to the manuscripts. Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has shown, it is criticism which we are not afraid of. An excellent example of human copying error resulting from the degeneration of papyrus.

__________________________________________________________

#2

David's Introduction to Saul

The next example at is also taken from the book of Samuel. In it David was introduced to Saul twice![4] In the first incident, Saul calls for Jesse to send his son, David to enter into the King's service as an armour bearer:

I Samuel 16:19, 21-23

...Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, "Send me David your son, who is with the sheep"...And David came to Saul, and entered his service, and he became his armour bearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying "Let David remain in my service, for he has found favour in my sight." And whenever the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand; so Saul was refreshed and was well...

The above passage clearly shows that David, as his armour bearer and entertainer, was known to Saul. Yet a little later, after David's fight with Goliath, Saul is made to enquire from his chief captain as to the identity of the giant slayer (I Samuel 17:56). And he is again made to inquire from David who he is, when he should have known this all along:

I Samuel 17:58

And Saul said to him, "Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse, the Bethlehemite."

I too found this passage perplexing at one time until I thought about it from a King's perspective. He had forgotten about David (a lowly shepherd) by then.

From Matthew Henry's commentary on the Bible:

The notice that was taken of David. Though he had been at court formerly, yet, having been for some time absent (1Sa_17:15), Saul had forgotten him, being melancholy and mindless, and little thinking that his musician would have spirit enough to be his champion; and therefore, as if he had never seen him before, he asked whose son he was. Abner was a stranger to him, but brought him to Saul (1Sa_17:57), and he gave a modest account of himself, 1Sa_17:58. And now he was introduced to the court with much greater advantages than before, in which he owned God's hand performing all things for him.

___________________________________________________________

#3 metaphoric statement?

I read that chapter over and over thinking....maybe Michal is denying the child in the metaphoric way Krusty the clowns dad did......

Michal's Children

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

Here, just as in the case of Elhanan’s slaying of Goliath, the pious translators of the Authorized Version tries to hide this contradiction by some convoluted wording. They translated the word “borne” as ‘brought up’ or raise, keeping the actual maternity relationship vague. Most modern translations translate it correctly as "borne”.

There are 4 possible explanations:

1. An ancient scribal error.

2. Michal had previous children from Palti son of Laish.

3. She had a child from David, but died in childbirth.

4. Even though it says "borne" 5 sons, the fathers name, Adriel, is the husband of Merab(Merav), Michals older sister. This could point to number 1 as well.

II Samuel 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. (KJV)

II Samuel 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: (KJV)

Many early copies of this book have the name 'Merab' in 2 Samuel 21:18 instead of Michal, leaving us with two possibilities here:

1) The 21:18 passage originally said 'the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul' and an early copyist accidentally changed it to 'the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul'. While such copyist errors were rare, they did happen. This possibility makes the most sense, since Merab was Adriel's wife (see 1 Samuel 18:19). Since such an error would not reflect on the original text, this would not be a contradiction.

2) The 21:18 passage originally said 'the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul' and the copyist error was replacing 'Michal' with 'Merab' (perhaps due to confusion based on the fact that Merab was Adriel's husband). Would this mean the author was in error? No. It's possible that Adriel and Merab were, for some reason, unable to raise their five children, so Michal took over the care of them instead. This would mean that while Michal had no children (as it says in 6:23), she did raise Adriel's children (as it says in 21:18).

Either way, not a contradiction.

The second verse is 2 Samuel 21:8. There are two different translations of this verse in the old manuscripts, however NEITHER of them say that Michal had the five sons. The verse can read either

"...and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite."

Or

"... together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, whom she had born to Adriel....etc."

Now, if the woman was Michal, they were adopted sons, and possibly her nephews, as indicated in the first quote, which is from the King James. If the woman was Merab there is again no problem. Michal herself was childless.

___________________________________________________________

#4 ???

Genealogical Contradiction

So far we have only looked at examples of contradiction among and within books of the Old Testament, now we will proceed to show similar examples from the New Testament.

First let us look at an example where a verse in the Old Testament contradicts that in the Old. Luke, in his genealogical tree of Jesus mentioned that Shelah was the grandson of Arphaxad:

Luke 3:35-36

...the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad,...

But this is explicitly contradicted by Genesis:[6]

Genesis 10:24

Arphaxad became the father of Shelah...

Joseph's Father

Matthew and Luke also contradicted each other fabulously in their respective genealogies of Jesus; both supposedly derived from Joseph’s side. They could not even agree who was Joseph’s father!

Matthew 1:16

and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli

Now, pray tell, who was Joseph’s father, Jacob or Heli?

These two examples are not the only problems with genealogies of Jesus. If you are interested, a more detailed treatment is given later.

______________________________________________________

#5 Contradicting quotes

The Death of Judas

There was also another point Matthew and Luke (writing in Acts) couldn’t agree on: the manner of Judas’ death.

Matthew 27:3-5

When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18

Now this man [Judas] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

Thus Matthew said that Judas committed suicide by hanging himself while Luke said Judas fell off a precipice. Note also that Matthew said Judas gave the money back to the chief priests while Luke said that Judas used the money to buy a plot of land.

We provide a more detailed analysis of the difficulties inherent in Judas' betrayal stories elsewhere in this website.

This type of examples can be multiplied tremendously but to show us that internal contradictions exist in the Bible, the above few will suffice.

This apparent contradiction asks, 'What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?' In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.

Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this". Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke's writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas' death.

This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true.

Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.

or another posibility....."untraditional"......

The critics seem to be supposing the Luke (the author of Acts) was both unfamiliar with Judas' hanging and also thought that a man can trip and fall in such a way that his bowels break open. Obviously, both suppositions are ridiculous. Judas hanged himself on Passover, and one is not allowed to touch a dead body on Passover. Therefore, Judas was taken down the next day. Having hung for roughly a full day, his stomach swelled. When taken down later, his body fell from the rope and his bowels burst open onto the ground. Not a contradiction.

_________________________________________________________

#6 ????

The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;

LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,

DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

In verse 13 Moses tells us about the birds and then he lists them out. In verse 19 we see the bat is included in this list. We know that a bat is not a bird. Does this not mean that the Bible is incorrect?

The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times with our science of being able to categorize animal species, we know that the bat is actually a mammal and not a bird.

Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. The critic has imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong.

_______________________________________________________________

#7 metaphoric statement?

Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp

thank you so much......

__________________________________________________________

#8 metaphoric statement?

Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

This is present in the King James Version, otherwise known as the Authorized Version. Somewhere in the versions that had come down and from which the KJV was translated, there was an apparent change of words here. The word in this verse, which is translated by the KJV as "fowl" is owph, or op. While the normal translation for this is "bird" or "fowl," it can also be translated as "winged" or "winged creature." In the meantime, the modern translations have had the advantage of access to much older manuscripts than the KJV translators had. These older texts did not have the word owph in this passage, but instead, had the word seres, which is a rather generic word for "creatures," and is interpreted according to context. Thus, the most precise translation of that verse might be "All flying creatures that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you..." In this context, "insects" is the obvious translation, especially as the following verses, defining what is meant, are referring specifically to insects.

As in the first objection, regarding bats and birds, the response here is that the classification had to do with locomotion. Animals which did not walk or hop on two legs were "four-legged". This also differentiated the insects from the birds, as both the words owph and seres were general enough to be able to apply to both. That the number four was used idiomatically can also be seen in Proverbs, in verses such as 30:15: "There are three things that are never satisfied, four that never say, 'Enough!'" Thus, grasshoppers, spiders, and centipedes would all be classified as "four-legged." They were not two-legged. But, like birds, they flew.

__________________________________________________________

#9 metaphoric statement?

The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

_____________________________________________________-

#10 metaphoric statement?

Moses' personality*

Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

Moses was meek, in that he submitted to God's will. In the Numbers 31 passage, Moses is carrying out God's orders. If one still insists on using this as an argument against Moses' meekness, but then we would also have to remember that people do change over time, and a good deal of time did elapse between these two passages.

_______________________________________________________

#11 Contradicting statements~Is luke referring to another speech AFTER they came back down because someone here is wrong....

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Matthew 5:1. And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: (KJV)

Luke 6:17 And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases; (KJV)

However, neither book specifically says that the sermon given was Jesus' first. For example, Jesus could have given the sermon on the mount before the sermon on the plain, and Luke simply left out the sermon on the mount. Leaving out information does not constitute a contradiction. Another explanation I've seen is that the wording in Matthew 5 :1 could imply that Jesus gave his sermon near a mountain, not on one, so this could be a single sermon, given on a plain in front of a mountain. Personally, I find the first explanation more likely, but, either way, this is not a contradiction.

______________________________________________________

#12 Contradicting statements

Jesus' last words

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

What were the last words of Jesus before he died?' is the question asked by Shabbir in this supposed contradiction. This does not show a contradiction any more than two witnesses to an accident at an intersection will come up with two different scenarios of that accident, depending on where they stood. Neither witness would be incorrect, as they describe the event from a different perspective. Luke was not a witness to the event, and so is dependent on those who were there. John was a witness. What they are both relating, however, is that at the end Jesus gave himself up to death.

It could be said that Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ (noted in the earlier question), while John, as well as quoting the last words of Jesus, was interested in the fulfilment of the salvific message, and so quoted the last phrase "it is finished".

John 17:4 records Jesus' prayer to the Father in the light of Christ's forthcoming crucifixion, stating that He had completed the work of revelation (John 1:18), and since revelation is a particular stress of the Gospel of John, and the cross is the consummation of that commission (John 3:16), it is natural that this Gospel should centre on tetelestai. At any rate, if Jesus said 'It is finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit' or vice versa, it would be quite in order to record either clause of this sentence, his last words. Luke-Acts reaches its conclusion without any climax, because the continuing ministry of the exalted Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Church has no ending prior to the Parousia, and to record tetelestai might have undermined this emphasis, or it could have been taken the wrong way. At any rate, no contradiction is involved; purely a distinction of emphasis.

_______________________________________________________-

#13 metaphoric statement?

God be seen?

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9

God CAN be seen:

"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)

"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)

"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:

"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)

"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

God the Father, as He exists in His spiritual form, cannot be directly seen or heard. But God the Father can manifest Himself into a form which can be seen and heard. He did this on several occasions in the Old Testament, leading to the claims of those who had seen Him. He also did this, in the form of Jesus Christ, in the New Testament.

_____________________________________________________

#14 Contradicting statements

How many times did the **** crow?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the **** crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the **** crew.

MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the **** crew.

LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The **** shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the **** crew.

This accusation is that Jesus says to Peter "the **** will not crow till you have denied me three times" (John 13:38) and also "Before the **** crows twice you will deny me three times" (Mark 14:30). However, as the King James translation has it the **** crowed prior to Peter's third denial in Mark, while the prediction in John failed. This problem is one of manuscript evidence.

Matthew 26:33-35, 74-75 "before the **** crows you will disown me three times"

Luke 22:31-34, 60-62 "before the **** crows today, you will deny three times that you know me"

John 13:38 "before the **** crows, you will disown me three times"

Mark is therefore the odd one out. This is probably due to the second crow being a later addition to the original Gospel for some unknown reason. Some early manuscripts of Mark do not have the words "a second time" and "twice" in 14:72, nor the word "twice" in 14:30, or the **** crowing a first time in verse 14:68 as in the King James translation. Therefore an erroneous addition is spotted by the clarity of having 4 accounts of the event and many early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark.

However, another explanation is plausible if the first crow verse (68 in the King James) was not in the original but the others ("twice" in 30 and 72) were, as in the New International translation. For as a **** can (and often does) crow more than once in a row, there would be no contradiction (the first and second crows being together, with Peter remembering Jesus' prediction on the second crow), for since we may be very sure that if a rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once. Mark therefore just included more information in his account than the other gospel writers.

Although I am not an expert on the manuscripts used for the King James translation and do not know a great deal about why later, more accurate translators had enough manuscript evidence to omit verse 68 but not the others, I think that the first reason is more likely.

________________________________________________________

#15 A

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Scholars agree that Jehoiachin was 18, not 8, and that the mistake in 2 Chronicles was due to a transcribing error. Mistakes of exactly ten were easy to make in the Hebrew number system (the difference between 18 and 8 is a single hook). Since this was most likely a transcribing error, it does not reflect what was in the original texts, so it would not count as a contradiction.

#15 B

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

22 in 2 Kings 8:26

42 in 2 Chron 22:2

The original Hebrew for 2 Chr 22:2 said that Ahaziah was the son of forty-two years (the word for 'old' in that passage, 'ben', denotes sonship). This implies that one of his parents was 42. Since his father is implied to be 40, it was probably his mother that was 42. This is a contradiction only in translation, not in what was originally written. Therefore, it is not a contradiction.

#15 C

When did Baasha die?

26th year of reign I kings 16:6-8

36th year of reign II chron 16:1

There are two possible solutions to this problem. To begin with, scholars who have looked at these passages have concluded that the 36th year of Asa should be calculated from the withdrawal of the 10 tribes from Judah and Benjamin which brought about the division of the country into Judah and Israel. If we look at it from this perspective, the 36th year of the divided monarchy would be in the 16th year of Asa. This is supported by the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, as well as contemporary records, which follow this convention. (note: for a fuller explanation of this theory, see Archer, page 225-116).

Keil and Delitzsch (pp. 366-367) preferred to regard the number 36 in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and the number 35 in 15:19 as a copyist's error for 16 and 15, respectively. This problem is similar to question numbers five and six above. In this case, however, the numbers were written using Hebrew alphabetical type (rather than the Egyptian multiple stroke type used in the Elephantine Papyri, referred to in questions 5 and 6). It is therefore quite possible that the number 16 could quite easily be confused with 36. The reason for this is that up through the seventh century BC the letter yod (10) greatly resembled the letter lamed (30), except for two tiny strokes attached to the left of the main vertical strokes. It required only a smudge from excessive wear on this scroll-column to result in making the yod look like a lamed. It is possible that this error occurred first in the earlier passage, in 2 Chronicles 15:19 (with its 35 wrongly copied from an original 15); then to make it consistent in 16:1, the same scribe (or perhaps a later one) concluded that 16 must be an error for 36 and changed it accordingly on his copy.

_________________________________________________________

#16 Contradicting statements

How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?

1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)

Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)

Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)

MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

There is no contradiction once you notice how the words are being used. In all the references given for eleven disciples, the point of the narrative account is to be accurate at that particular moment of time being spoken of. After the death of Judas there were only eleven disciples, and this remained so until Matthias was chosen to take Judas' place.

In 1 Corinthians 15:5 the generic term 'the Twelve' is therefore used for the disciples because Matthias is also counted within the Twelve, since he also witnessed the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the passage pointed out by Shabbir records in Acts 1:21-22.

________________________________________________________

#17 Contradicting statements

Whom did they see at the tomb?

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

__________________________________________________________

#18 Contradicting statements

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

scarlet - Matthew 27:28 “Bright red tinged with orange”

purple John 19:2

Scarlet and purple are very similar colors. There are shades of color that could easily be described as both 'scarlet' and 'purple'. I guess the type of dye used back then was closer to Purple......

________________________________________________________

#19 Contradicting statements

What did they give him to drink?…..before he died?

vinegar - Matthew 27:34

wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23

Whether it was 'vinegar' or 'wine' is not a contradiction, since the Hebrew words used are "oinos" (translated as 'vinegar' in Matthew and 'wine' in Mark) and "oxos" (translated as 'vinegar' in Luke and John). "Oinos" means 'wine" and "Oxos" means 'sour wine', so these are not contradictory. All four agree that Jesus was given wine to drink, but two of them added that the wine was sour. As for whether the wine was mingled with gall or myrrh, 'gall' means anything which is bitter, which myrrh is. In this event, each author left out at least one detail, but leaving out details is not a contradiction.

_________________________________________________________

#20 Odd Quotes

Are the following simply statements of the way things WERE because I don't see the logic behind some of these.....

_____________

Question:~

Under what circumstances does the Bible say a woman must have her hands cut off for touching a man's genitals?

Answer:~

When she touches them in an effort to protect her husband from an attacker.

Quote:~

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her" (Deuteronomy 25:11-12).

Question:~

What are God's policies regarding the treatment of women captured in war?

Answer:~

The victor may choose any of the women he wants to be his wife.

The victor may choose any of the women to be his wife but if she's bad in bed, while he may kick her out, he may not sell her as a slave.

In cities God has given to His people as an inheritance, the women must be killed just like all the men and every other living thing.

Quote:~

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seeth among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and remain in thine house . . . And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her" (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but shalt utterly destroy them" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

Question:~

Which of the following statements reflects God's requirement for all women?

Answer:~

She must submit to her husband's whims.

She may be sold by her father as a sex slave, but if she doesn't please her master, he should let her go.

If she is engaged to be married, she should not be raped by a stranger, but if she is a slave, the rapist's punishment should be minimal.

Quote:~

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband" (Colossians 3:18-19; see 1 Peter 3:1; Ephesians 5:22). "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed" (Exodus 21:7-8). "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged: they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering" (Leviticus 19:20-21).

Obviously some of these are simply old traditions that were followed in Old testiment times and are not to be taken literally today. Shoot some are Illegal today......

________________________________________________________

"He who pleads his case first seems right;

Until another comes and questions him."

We Follow by Faith, not by sight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 answer both of your questions at the same time……

I am Baptist, however I spent 6 months with a roommate that was the antichrist, Sooo I began reading and studying a ton more to get a better grasp on what is going on. I stumbled upon the 1001 Biblical contradictions and it made me feel like sh*t. I felt like everything I based my life on was a waste of time. I seriously doubted the validity of the Bible for about 3 days. Then I read who wrote what books and when, followed by what ancient manuscripts are damaged and hard to decipher and I realized majority of these contradictions are B.S. and simply someone just trying to find reasons to bash religion by pulling random phrases out of context……

My bottom line is…..I doubted what is once……I NEVER WANT TO DO IT AGAIN……I now know the truth HOWEVER I am still seeking answers to 10 more questions……….all the other 1000 ones were simple……these should be too….with some help I can do this……

HTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 answer both of your questions at the same time……

I am Baptist, however I spent 6 months with a roommate that was the antichrist, Sooo I began reading and studying a ton more to get a better grasp on what is going on. I stumbled upon the 1001 Biblical contradictions and it made me feel like sh*t. I felt like everything I based my life on was a waste of time. I seriously doubted the validity of the Bible for about 3 days. Then I read who wrote what books and when, followed by what ancient manuscripts are damaged and hard to decipher and I realized majority of these contradictions are B.S. and simply someone just trying to find reasons to bash religion by pulling random phrases out of context……

My bottom line is…..I doubted what is once……I NEVER WANT TO DO IT AGAIN……I now know the truth HOWEVER I am still seeking answers to 10 more questions……….all the other 1000 ones were simple……these should be too….with some help I can do this……

HTTR

Without getting into another religious debate I want to say something. My advice to you is to abandon books and keep your religion based on faith, by trying to prove it with reason all you are doing is setting yourself up to logical attack. Faith is strong, inconsistent logic is a paper tiger that can be destroyed with careful criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting into another religious debate I want to say something. My advice to you is to abandon books and keep your religion based on faith, by trying to prove it with reason all you are doing is setting yourself up to logical attack. Faith is strong, inconsistent logic is a paper tiger that can be destroyed with careful criticism.

I agree with this post.

I want to add to think about Soloman, who was said to be the wisest man of his day. But he thought he could handle having wives of different religions than his, and what happened is that he wound up giving a sacrificial offering to one of them.

A full understanding of the Bible is something that we should all search for to get closer to God. But just like a kid who wants to be in the NFL doesn't just jump in with the bid dawgs his first day, a guy whose faith in the accuracy of the Bible isn't great can easily be diverted and taught to hate the Bible.

If you want to start understanding the Bible, I was taught to start with the books of wisdom like the Gospels, Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesties, Job, etc. You'll find that this question is raised a lot, especially in Proverbs.

In particular, Provers talks in Chapter 5 about entertaining strange "women", but it first declares "Get Wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my moouth. FOrsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee."

So I kinda see that as saying that Wisdom is the right woman. And all other things are strange women. ANd Chapter 5 of proverbs talks about dealing with these.

In particular, "(5:3)For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: but her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell. "

And here are a few more.

"(9:6)Forsake the foolish and live; and go in the way of understanding"

"(13:20)He that walketh with the wise shall become wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting into another religious debate I want to say something. My advice to you is to abandon books and keep your religion based on faith, by trying to prove it with reason all you are doing is setting yourself up to logical attack. Faith is strong, inconsistent logic is a paper tiger that can be destroyed with careful criticism.

Also agree and wanted to add that I cant remeber what verse it is but it says in the bible (paraphasing) "a double minded man is unbalanced in all his ways" --Meaning if you constantly "flip-flop" between believing in faith and not believing in faith you will be inconsistant in your thoughts toward God. Sounds like where your at, now you said your roomate was the antichrist? What else would the antichrist try and do than destroy your faith in God? You see in all the devils tactics he tries to sway a persons mind to rationalizing the non-existance, and lack of power that God has, he even tried to do to Jesus in the wilderness. It does not take much to see you are in a similar situation in your life, and thats just where the devil wants you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like where your at, now you said your roomate was the antichrist? What else would the antichrist try and do than destroy your faith in God? You see in all the devils tactics he tries to sway a persons mind to rationalizing the non-existance, and lack of power that God has, he even tried to do to Jesus in the wilderness. It does not take much to see you are in a similar situation in your life, and thats just where the devil wants you.

I'm just curious, KingBrice, was Antichrist the right word? Was your roommate really trying to destroy your faith, or was he just atheist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#2

David's Introduction to Saul

The next example at is also taken from the book of Samuel. In it David was introduced to Saul twice![4] In the first incident, Saul calls for Jesse to send his son, David to enter into the King's service as an armour bearer:

I Samuel 16:19, 21-23

...Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, "Send me David your son, who is with the sheep"...And David came to Saul, and entered his service, and he became his armour bearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying "Let David remain in my service, for he has found favour in my sight." And whenever the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand; so Saul was refreshed and was well...

The above passage clearly shows that David, as his armour bearer and entertainer, was known to Saul. Yet a little later, after David's fight with Goliath, Saul is made to enquire from his chief captain as to the identity of the giant slayer (I Samuel 17:56). And he is again made to inquire from David who he is, when he should have known this all along:

I Samuel 17:58

And Saul said to him, "Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse, the Bethlehemite."

I too found this passage perplexing at one time until I thought about it from a King's perspective. He had forgotten about David (a lowly shepherd) by then.

From Matthew Henry's commentary on the Bible:

The notice that was taken of David. Though he had been at court formerly, yet, having been for some time absent (1Sa_17:15), Saul had forgotten him, being melancholy and mindless, and little thinking that his musician would have spirit enough to be his champion; and therefore, as if he had never seen him before, he asked whose son he was. Abner was a stranger to him, but brought him to Saul (1Sa_17:57), and he gave a modest account of himself, 1Sa_17:58. And now he was introduced to the court with much greater advantages than before, in which he owned God's hand performing all things for him.

#3 metaphoric statement?

I read that chapter over and over thinking....maybe Michal is denying the child in the metaphoric way Krusty the clowns dad did......

Michal's Children

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

Here, just as in the case of Elhanan’s slaying of Goliath, the pious translators of the Authorized Version tries to hide this contradiction by some convoluted wording. They translated the word “borne” as ‘brought up’ or raise, keeping the actual maternity relationship vague. Most modern translations translate it correctly as "borne”.

There are 4 possible explanations:

1. An ancient scribal error.

2. Michal had previous children from Palti son of Laish.

3. She had a child from David, but died in childbirth.

4. Even though it says "borne" 5 sons, the fathers name, Adriel, is the husband of Merab(Merav), Michals older sister. This could point to number 1 as well.

I find that just doing research like this is invigorating and brings me closer to God and increases my faith.

_________________________________

I will work on more if I have time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting into another religious debate I want to say something. My advice to you is to abandon books and keep your religion based on faith, by trying to prove it with reason all you are doing is setting yourself up to logical attack. Faith is strong, inconsistent logic is a paper tiger that can be destroyed with careful criticism.

This is the exact reason why he needs to disprove all the so called contradictions. For a Christian, the Bible is where you get faith because it is one of the tools God uses to speak to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in the end how did you prove to yourself that Jesus is the Son of an ominipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God? Like I said, if you try to "prove" your relgion based on reason you will only bring yourself to faith or contradiction. Now, did that guy basically just tell you about contradictions in the Bible? If so then this particular antichrist (me) thinks that he probably wasn't the most intelligent atheist. There are much better ways of criticizing God's existance than that, like the problem of evil for instance.

BTW once you give "scribal error" as a reason to a contradiction you open yourself a big can of worms. I mean wouldn't the All Mighty Being atleast make sure his DIVINE text was written down correctly? The enormity of the mistake is not important. If scribal mistakes can happen in one part than they can happen in other parts, and if errors are contained in the text than I can hardly consider it Divine. Also if you allow for some metaphoric statements then how are you so sure the whole thing isn't one big metaphor? Or that things you thought were factual were actually metaphor. This way seems to pretty much destroy the idea of Biblical literalism. I don't know if that was your intention.

It seems to me you are sweeping aside to many of these contradictions as copy or scribal errors, but you have to know that is exactly what the Biblical contradictions are showing. They are showing you the THERE ARE ERRORS. I will look up the one about the rabbit, but the other ones seem like you aren't refuting a contradiction you are actually agreeing that there is one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as "scribal error" I think most who have studied the bible much would agree that there are errors per se especially in the change of meanings between the translations to different languages. There is also the cultural aspect that must be taken into consideration when trying to understand passages. Most questions that arise can be resolved thru study of the early manuscripts and the customs of the age.

I believe the King James bible contains the words of God,but also recognise that what we have is a translation done by man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be a really long response if I'm not careful. From a historical/scholarly/secular viewpoint, the reason for such discrepancies comes from the separation between the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judea). Each had its own version of scriptures. Scholars call these two different versions "J" and "E", because one refers to God as Elohim, while the other refers to God as YHWH, better known today as Yahweh or Jehovah. Each kingdom believed it had divine authority, in particular the debate was who had the rights to the priesthood -the descendants of Levi or the descendants of Aaron. So scriptures from the Northern kingdom tended to extol the virtues of the Levites while exposing the vices of Aaron and Judaic rulers. By contrast, the Southern scriptures bragged about the wisdom of Solomon and defended Aaron and his descendants. A century or so later, under the leadership of Judah's King Josiah, his scribe "found" another book of scriptures, which would become Deuteronomy (Second Law). His scribe compiled both versions together, and is thought to have purged any references that might have appeared to suggest polytheism (Biblical scholars call this the Deuteronomic reform). By putting together both sources, one is confronted with such contradictions because each side wanted to validate their own righteousness while discrediting the other. This is particularly acute in respect to Judean rulers whom the Israelites referred to as "taskmasters," the same word used for Egyptian slave owners. Solomon conscribed Northerners into forced labor to build palaces and religious buildings in the South. That's why passages taken from the Southern (J) source speak endlessly about his wisdom, whilst passages taken from E point out in detail how his many concubines and wives led him to worship false Gods, and why the Southern source credits David with slaying Goliath, while the Northern source credits another. If you want more details, here's a book I highly recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060630353/qid=1136339472/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-4231139-9552620?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as "scribal error" I think most who have studied the bible much would agree that there are errors per se especially in the change of meanings between the translations to different languages. There is also the cultural aspect that must be taken into consideration when trying to understand passages. Most questions that arise can be resolved thru study of the early manuscripts and the customs of the age.

I believe the King James bible contains the words of God,but also recognise that what we have is a translation done by man.

Yes even if we are under the premise that the Bible is based on divine truth then there are going to be translations problems between

God--->prophet

Prophet---->desciples

Disciples------>scribes

Scribes----->translators

All this seperated by how many years? And how long was it kept going by word of mouth?

Also, I think the Vatican at one point disregarded some books of the Bible. I forget the historical event, but I know it happened at some point... maybe someone else can elaborate.

So in the end, the Bible itself is greatly seperated from the Divine Truth, if such truth ever even existed.

It kind of seems God went out of his way to complicate things. He could part the seas and bring the dead to life but not bother to write his own word down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...