|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Please explain this clear Bible error. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terry Inactive Member |
The 36th year in is probably supposed to be the 26th year. The original would have been correct, but over hundreds of years of hand written coppies, a few mistakes were made. Expecially in Kings and Chronicles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
The 36th year in is probably supposed to be the 26th year. The original would have been correct, but over hundreds of years of hand written coppies, a few mistakes were made. Expecially in Kings and Chronicles. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terry Inactive Member |
If the 35th year was really supposed to be the 25th year, that solves the rest of the problem and both account would then agree with each other. I am basing this assumption on the fact that 2 Chr 14:1 says that in the days of Asa the land had rest for 10 years, not 20.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
And if you think the bible is just a big collection of mistakes doesn't it make the all inerrancy gig rather pointless anyway?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
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 Inactive Member |
http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr01.html
{Copy and Paste of entire web page replaced with link by AdminTL -- Terry, the "copyright, 2002" that you cut and pasted into your message is put on the page to remind you that it is illegal to borrow someone's material in that way. It is also against forum rules. You can post a link, and then copy perhaps a couple paragraphs over and expand on them to make your point. We want to hear your arguments, but large cut and paste jobs like that are illegal and they make you lose your audience, anyway. Pique our interest with quotes and an argument, and provide a link, and those who are convinced or even interested by your argument can follow the link to read the whole page.} [This message has been edited by AdminTL, 03-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terry Inactive Member |
Sorry about the large cut and past job...I did check with the site and it was ok with them as long as you copy the entire article.
I am a Bible believing Christian and believe that the Bible is inerrant, but there are a few minor discrepencies that have crept into the text over time. There does not exist a 100% copy of the original text. These minor problems do not take away from the message of God and salvation of man. People want to point to a couple of problems with a number or the spelling of a name and throw out the entire Bible. When in reality, the objective reader of God's word must admit that it is a miricle that it is in as good of shape as it is. No other collection of books have ever stood the test of time that the Bible has been through. All of the errors that I have ever seen are in the OT. As far as I know there are none in the NT because we have manuscirpts that date back to almost the time of the original writting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I did check with the site and it was ok with them as long as you copy the entire article. I wondered if you had. You seemed like the kind of person who would. That's why my correction was worded so gentle.
I am a Bible believing Christian and believe that the Bible is inerrant. 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.
These minor problems do not take away from the message of God and salvation of man. 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?
All of the errors that I have ever seen are in the OT. As far as I know there are none in the NT 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riley Inactive Member |
People want to point to a couple of problems with a number or the spelling of a name and throw out the entire Bible. I just don't believe this is so, Terry. There's a century and a half of solid biblical scholarship which frankly disproves or calls into question much of the Bible. It's not done for the purpose of trampling anyone's religious beliefs. If some people see Biblical fiction as a reason to cast the Bible aside it's a direct result of the loud insistence that it is inerrant.
No other collection of books have ever stood the test of time that the Bible has been through. The Vedas are older and the I Ching is nearly as old, plus there are Egyptian and Babylonian works, eg, which have survived without being directly in the care of a single religious or ethnic group. Confucianism, Taoism, and Mohism predate the New Testament by several centuries, and the oldest Buddhist texts are roughly contemporaneous with the earliest Gospels. The Bible doesn't need superlatives heaped on it, particularly spurious ones.
All of the errors that I have ever seen are in the OT. As far as I know there are none in the NT because we have manuscirpts that date back to almost the time of the original writting. Uh, no, unless you mean scraps the size of your thumbnail. The Vatican Codex is a couple hundred years later. And the difficulties with the NT histories begins at Matthew 1, proceeding through an entirely fictitious nativity in Bethlehem designed to fulfill a misreading of prophecy in Isiah. I don't mean to sound harsh, Terry, I truly don't. But facts are stubborn things, and there are plenty of articulate people like truthlover who can face them and find spiritual value in the texts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: I wouldn't call traslation error Biblical fiction, and furthermore when you say inerrant, would that not be the same as fiction? Then causing the same result? {edited by AdminTL to fix ub code} [This message has been edited by AdminTL, 03-19-2004] The earth is flat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riley Inactive Member |
I wouldn't call traslation error Biblical fiction Nor would I. Terry spoke of people "pointing out a couple of problems" and then discarding the Bible. That simply trivializes the body of evidence which might lead one to dismiss claims of inerrancy, evidence which includes outright fiction.
and furthermore when you say inerrant, would that not be the same as fiction? Then causing the same result? I'm sorry but you've lost me here. Terry suggests that some people toss the Bible aiside over questions of accuracy; I respond that if so it's because they have listened to the arguments that the Bible's authority stems from its literal truth. If no one claimed the Bible was inerrant, Biblical fiction would be immaterial. On edit: Nice guitar. Yours? A Les Paul (it's little hard to make out for me)? [This message has been edited by Riley, 03-17-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
But facts are stubborn things, and there are plenty of articulate people like truthlover who can face them and find spiritual value in the texts. Thank you, but I need to disagree with you on one point, even though it's not a central one.
a misreading of prophecy in Isiah 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riley Inactive Member |
Hi truthlover,
It's easy for a newbie to forget how tough you guys are. I meant to cite Micah, not Isaiah. My use of the term "misread" was intended as gentle euphemism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024