It is, for the most part, an irrefutable fact that the Bible has errors. Whether these are transcriber errors or errors in the original manuscript is not a question that has any meaning, since it cannot be verified one way or another. In fact, citing the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence that the scribes put forth a remarkable effort in preserving the texts actually does nothing if not suggest the original manuscripts were in error.
It is a clear dichotomy that God either cannot or will not prevent these errors from occurring. Since he is omnipotent, he can prevent them, so the conclusion is that he chooses not to. Therefore, he either wants there to be errors in the Bible, or he simply does not care. Which is it and why?
In the problem of evil, God is shown to have good reasons for allowing evil to exist. But what good reason is there for allowing contradictions in the Bible? I am curious if anyone can even name one good reason.
So those are my two questions. For the purposes of this thread, the following responses will be considered off-topic:
Contradictions do not detract from Christ's sacrifice.
This is too far off topic.
It doesn't matter that the Bible has contradictions.
This is not showing how there is a good reason for them to be there.
We still understand the meaning of the passages that are in error.
This also does not show how there is a good reason for them to be there.
The passages that contradict one another are not central doctrine.
God apparently thought it was important enough to record these things twice; also, appealing to "central doctrine" takes us off topic.
The questions in this thread assume a false dichotomy.
Unless you can explicitly say what the third possibility is, I'm not interested in a proposal that goes something like, "There is a third possibility, even if we don't know what it is." This is analogous to claiming that there is an integer which is neither even nor odd, despite the fact that we haven't found it yet. No, there isn't.
If you object to the premise of my question because you believe the Bible is infallible, try your hand at refuting the following:
It is a clear dichotomy that God either cannot or will not prevent these errors from occurring. Since he is omnipotent, he can prevent them, so the conclusion is that he chooses not to. Therefore, he either wants there to be errors in the Bible, or he simply does not care. Which is it and why?
In the problem of evil, God is shown to have good reasons for allowing evil to exist. But what good reason is there for allowing contradictions in the Bible? I am curious if anyone can even name one good reason.
So those are my two questions. For the purposes of this thread, the following responses will be considered off-topic:
Contradictions do not detract from Christ's sacrifice.
This is too far off topic.
It doesn't matter that the Bible has contradictions.
This is not showing how there is a good reason for them to be there.
We still understand the meaning of the passages that are in error.
This also does not show how there is a good reason for them to be there.
The passages that contradict one another are not central doctrine.
God apparently thought it was important enough to record these things twice; also, appealing to "central doctrine" takes us off topic.
The questions in this thread assume a false dichotomy.
Unless you can explicitly say what the third possibility is, I'm not interested in a proposal that goes something like, "There is a third possibility, even if we don't know what it is." This is analogous to claiming that there is an integer which is neither even nor odd, despite the fact that we haven't found it yet. No, there isn't.
If you object to the premise of my question because you believe the Bible is infallible, try your hand at refuting the following:
1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.
1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).
1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30, Jeremiah 22:11).
2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.
3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah with the underscore is the son of Jehoiakim.
"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.
I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31, 2 Chronicles 36:2).
II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).
III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).
IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).
V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).
VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).
VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.
Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.
Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.
QED
Last edited: