Please explain this clear Bible error.

Kings says Omni was king during the 36th year of Asa's reign, not a Baasha II. Omni was replaced by Ahab in the 38th year of Asa. 2 Chr 16 says Baasha, king of Israel, attacked Judah in Asa's 36th year.We have a situation here, Captain. I can't hold her! She's breaking up! Aaarghh... :-D

Wait, wait!Oh, gosh, this is obvious. I can't believe a fan of the Lord of the Rings like myself could possibly have missed it.Baasha was dead in the 36th year of Asa, but he had been a murderer in his life. So, in order to be able to rest in peace, Omni, the current king, summoned Baasha to perform a heroic deed and build a fortress in Judah. Once that was accomplished, Baasha was able to rest in peace.I saw that in Return of the King. This is not a contradiction! It's a ghost story! :-D

Yeah, I'm afraid that 2 Chr 16 specifically says Baasha, King of Israel, and 1 Kings, whether it says it or not, is giving the lineage of the Kings of Israel.Now, there may be arguments about whether the kings of Israel were just local warlords, but that's irrelevant. For the purposes of Kings and Chronicles, the "king of Israel" reference in Chronicles is clearly a reference to the same king Baasha as mentioned in Kings.

Okay, but now you've created a new problem, since 2 Chr 15:19 says there was no war from the 15th year of Asa's reign until the 35th.

Yeah, I have to agree that if we change all the numbers to numbers that don't contradict, then there's no contradictions in the numbers anymore.

This is along the lines of MrJack's comment, too (I think).The whole "copyist mistake" thing...exactly what does that clear up? If there's these unobtainable original autographs that are the inerrant Word of God, what good does that do us? The Bible we have now is not the inerrant Word of God.I remember back when I used to believe the inerrant thing, I knew the KJV-only people were defending error. There was no way that the author of 1 John wrote 1 John 5:7 as it is in the KJV. However, their argument that an inerrant Bible requires that the Bible be currently inerrant, not just inerrant in the past, is a really good one.According to the Bible, Jesus said that the law wouldn't pass away till every "jot and tittle" was fulfilled. The heavens and earth would pass away, he said, but his words wouldn't pass away.If the original autographs are the only inerrant Word of God, and the modern copies are all full of contradictions, then haven't quite a few jots and tittles passed away, along with a number of Jesus' words?Changing numbers around may solve the contradiction problem (at least on those numbers), but it really doesn't solve the inerrancy problem, because by saying the numbers need to be changed, you are agreeing that the Bibles we have now are not innerrant.

Terry, your link really didn't address my post, anyway. It argues that God shouldn't be held responsible for copyist errors. That's fine. My point was that if we have no inerrant current copies, then there is no "inerrant Word of God" available, no matter what the original autographs were like.A couple of his arguments seemed awful weak to me, though. For example, that page quotes "Archer" as saying:

quote:

---

because the production of even one perfect copy of one book is so far beyond the capacity of a human scribe as to render it necessary for God to perform a miracle in order to produce it

---

Right, but the production of the original copy of the book, for those who teach that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, "renders it necessary for God to perform a miracle in order to produce it." Why should the miracle of keeping it be any less likely than the miracle of producing it in the first place?The whole point of suggesting the Bible is inerrant is completely lost when there are no inerrant copies available.

I wondered if you had. You seemed like the kind of person who would. That's why my correction was worded so gentle. I believe that the Life I am a part of is the Life the Bible describes and calls people, too, so I'm not trying to attack the Bible, either. I think they add to the message. Who do you know that's inerrant? I don't know any people that are inerrant, but I think I know people that speak the Word of God, and I would like to speak the Word of God, too. The Bible says, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." That is "proceeds," not "which once proceeded."I think Paul and John were like the men of God I know now. They don't repeat stories inerrantly, but they do hear from God and give advice that is backed up by God. Paul said he saw through a glass darkly and prophesied in part (note he said "we," not "you" or "they"). That doesn't sound verbally inspired or inerrant, but I most certainly believe he spoke and wrote the Word of God.So, I think errors add to the message. It means the Word of God is available to be heard from God by people like me, who have no hope of being inerrant. I don't know any inerrant men of God, so why should I assume Paul, John, or Peter were inerrant? Hmm, try reconciling the resurrection accounts sometime. And then there's Gospel accounts, like the healing of Bartimaeus. In Mark 10 Bartimaeus is named, and Jesus is leaving Jericho. In Luke 18, Bartimaeus is not named, but it's obviously the same story, and Jesus is entering Jericho. No big deal as far as it being a pretty minor detail in the story, but a real big deal if you believe in inerrancy.There's also John 19:14, where Jesus is being tried on the preparation of the passover in front of Pilate, rather than on the Passover itself, as in the other Gospels.And the one I mentioned is 1 Jn 5:7. It's in the KJV, but not more modern versions. It seems like an addition, just in reading it, but the story about it makes it clear it was an addition. There are no legitimate Greek manuscripts that have the part between "in heaven..." and "...on earth." It's in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus left it out of the Greek text he was putting together, and when challenged on it, he asked his challengers to produce a Greek manuscript with the verse. They forged one, and he had to put it in the third edition. Then, in his next edition, he took it out, because he knew darn well they forged it. As it turned out, King Jimmy used the third edition for the KJV, so it has come down to us, based on the forged Greek manuscript and a couple copies of it, none dating earlier than the 17th century, of course.I've seen several other NT problems brought up on these forums.

Thank you, but I need to disagree with you on one point, even though it's not a central one. I don't think it's a misreading. It is, admittedly, out of context and way out of context. It is also based on the Septuagint translation, which in this case doesn't match what we're pretty sure the Hebrew says. However, based on the church fathers who quote the verse, I'd say they didn't misread it. I'd say they knew it was out of context, but that pulling verses out of context and applying them was accepted practice. Most of the prophecies quoted in Hebrews are way out of context.Justin Martyr, for example, quotes the whole passage from Isaiah 7, and not only does he apply the prophecy to Christ, but he also says the two kings are Pilate and Herod! There's no way he misread it. It was just normal practice to read the Tanach figuratively.If you had said "based on a mistranslation," I would have left you alone, but I don't think "a misreading" is accurate.

You're missing the point of the problem. The problem is that John has Y'shua being put to death on the preparation day of the Passover. John 18:28 makes it clear that the Pharisees had not yet eaten the Passover. In the synoptic Gospels, however, Y'shua has his disciples go prepare the Passover (see Mark 14:12, for instance). He then eats it with them, and is then arrested and put to death the following day.The time is the least of the contradictions. The problem is the day.Maybe the issue really is John's use of the Roman time system. If you use Roman time, you do have to have Y'shua killed before the Passover is eaten, because that's the only way he is put to death on the Passover. If you use Jewish time, he must be put to death on the day following the Passover (if he's to die in the daytime) in order to die on the Passover.That would explain the reason John got the day different than the others, but the fact is, he has the day different than the others.

It's probably fair for you to say this, depending on what Terry meant by "date back almost to the originals," but... I think there are fragments of John dating back to 120, but that's just a technical point. I don't understand this statement. Of course they are, and they are used that way all the time, especially concerning the accuracy of the texts we have now. Am I missing something in what you are saying?Someone on this board said that the 21st chapter of John's Gospel was a late addition. My immediate reaction was to look through the fathers to see when the earliest quote of John 21 is found. The earliest of the fathers (such as Ignatius) don't quote John 21. I can't remember now who was the earliest, but it was late enough for me to agree it's possible ch. 21 could be a late addition.This applies to authorship, because it's only in ch. 21 that any authorship is claimed. No scholar would suggest that ch. 21 was added without first doing what I did, consulting the earliest fathers to see if it's quoted.The fathers are also decisive on say, 1 Jn 5:7, which we have been discussing. That verse would be very pertinent to arguments about who the Son was, yet it's not quoted, not even by early 3rd century writers like Tertullian, who wrote Against Praxeas, on a subject that 1 Jn 5:7 directly applies to. The fathers are used in this way all the time.