Biblical contradictions.

Although there are numerous translation glitches that ‘suit’ one population over another, only one Biblical contradiction has stymied my ‘fundamentalist’ attempt to render the Bible inerrant in every last detail. Doubtless there are others apparent, but I believe I’ve reconciled them all, including the Genesis discrepancies and the so called Calvanistic-Arminian discrepancies (i.e., God’s Sovereignty vs Free Will). But note this apparent discrepancy:2 Kings 24.8 states: Jehoiachinb was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months.Vs.2 Chronicles 36.9 states: Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign and he reigned three monthsApologists have called this a transcriptional error.
(1) If, indeed, this is a transcriptional error, then a purely literal fundamentalist scheme of the KJV seems to fail (at least to a degree).
(2) If, on the other hand, I state that I believe the original manuscripts only were correct, then I concede God’s Word is at least partially obscured by errors.
(3) Jehoiachin tutored 10 years before really allowed to reign.
(4) Or, the words must become ‘surreal’ in their relations (as in the Poetic books) to impart a ‘higher’ meaning, e.g., Jehoiachin was ‘so young’, ‘premadonna-like’, ‘premature’, etc. before taken into captivity by Babylon.
(5) A devout Christian may add that the Gospel Word (i.e., the Christ dying for our sins and raising from the dead) must also be ‘symphonic’ with this scripture to be valid. (an offshoot of no. 4 above)Anyone care to comment additionally on this ‘apparent’ contradiction?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
Why did he make us fallible? We are made in his image, according to a creationist we are literaly in his image(I say that to show a point, regardless of how you would like to pick and choose what is literal and what isn't you can't) therefore god is fallible also.

---

--See my Hypothesis #1 under the post: "Only Christian ID makes logical sense?"
--"Redeeming" observations of (fallible) man.Note: Eve was deceived, Adam deliberately sinned, this was a 'redeeming' act (as per the New Testament model)Satan is another fallible creature who biblically will suffer a hell that was prepared for the devil and his angels; how cruel, right? But just and befitting the infinite torment he willfully has inflicted upon others.Can not one be in the image of God and still be fallible. I.e., with 'freedom' of expression?Refuse to see the 'redeeming' observations around us and you're willfully blind. Such refusal denies scientific and ethical observations, making a double lie. If God is fallible(which is further supported by his need to send his Christ then his word cannot be taken at face value and the the entire bible is suspect.

​

[/QUOTE]--The entire Bible is only suspect if the Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead nature of ID is absent. That would leave you with the ‘un-redeeming’ law of Moses, which only damns us all as guilty sinners.--‘Redeeming’ observations are better than ‘Perfect noble’ ones, for they atone for the evil while producing a greater good a more excellent design overall.--A brief summary of Hypothesis #1 under my post: "Only Christian ID makes logical sense?:There are indeed infinitudes of ubiquitous ‘cursed’ and ‘redeeming’ qualities found throughout the creation, from bacterial resistance and advances in molecular biology to ‘cruel and cursed' cosmic darkness’ and ‘redeeming’ light rays’.
Numerous ubiquitous observations in nature obviously portray the nature of the ID to be a Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead scheme. This ID model is exceedingly blatant and cannot be ruled out scientifically.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
How do you decide whose interpretation is correct?--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]The apriori interpretation that places faith/bias in the Gospel--the Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection for a sin-cursed creation--as the key to understanding the Bible, is absolute amongst most evangelicals (at least they say something to that effect).Innumerable biblical passages support the above dogma (no need to recap them here as this is not meant to be a pulpit). All other apriori interpretations are incorrect and cause the creationist scheme to crumble readily. I.e., There must be the science of Christ-crucified apriori for one to interpret the Bible, from the evangelical’s theories to root into. It is this evangelical faith/bias that supports creation science, not the legalistic old Testament readings.After absolute Gospel interpretation is ‘reached’, the Bible becomes non-cantankerous debate regarding the details: i.e., YEC vs OEC vs ToE vs ToM (theory of mega-mutants), etc.; wherein everyone has a different perspective.But the absolute interpretive rule of Gospel-faith applies to all biblical arguments from most evangelical perspectives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

How do you decide which Biblical interpretation is correct?
--Percy

---

The scriptures appear open to different interpretations and perspectives, even as regards the clocks. The Biblical interpretation is most correct that satisfies the faith of the individual, otherwise it is sin. One man’s interpretation thus becomes another’s sin. The OEC (which is appalling from many evangelical perspectives) is acceptable to many Christian perspectives, and in God’s eyes may be more accurate, at least for that person’s objective perspective.Who am I to say one interpretation is absolute (save the Gospel itself)?Matthew calls Christ the ‘King’, Mark the ‘servant’, Luke the ‘son of man’, John ‘the son of God’, etc. These all rightfully conflict yet form an extremely well rounded and accurate portrait/interpretation of the Christ. No man can put his sole interpretation on the ‘black box’. The same is true regarding the creation: Some men perceive days as years. Some see redemption as mutational-evolution. Some see ex-nihilo events, while others see ‘gap’s, etc.Thus, you alone learn which Biblical interpretation is correct. Certain aspects will conflict with others to yield the truth