Contradictions in the Bible

Nihilist Virus · Dec 19, 2015

Wgw said:
What thing? What distinction? What "itself?"

New rule: no playing dumb. If you want to go all out nihilist on me, you lose. Period. Your belief system is in no way compatible with nihilism.

So stop playing games. You know what I'm saying.

I have a nagging suspicion you are not familiar with the definition of "prosopon."

I'm not a theologian, so why would I know that? Are you trying to make me look ignorant for not knowing obscure words? Congrats. Now explain how it is relevant.

Wgw · Dec 19, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
New rule: no playing dumb. If you want to go all out nihilist on me, you lose. Period. Your belief system is in no way compatible with nihilism.

I can assure you, nihilism is the last position I should look to embrace.

So stop playing games. You know what I'm saying.

I don't, actually. I suspect you, like most who reject the Trinity, have a flawed understanding of triadology, which is admittedly the fault of much of Christendom for failing tomproperly explain the doctrine of Nicea. I have to understand what you think the Trinity is, before responding; if I were a betting man, I would wager your understanding differs from Nicene orthodoxy substantially.

I'm not a theologian, so why would I know that? Are you trying to make me look ignorant for not knowing obscure words? Congrats. Now explain how it is relevant.

Certainly not. An understanding of "essence" or "ousios" and "person" understood according to the classical idea of "prosopon" is essential to acquiring an intellectual understanding of the Trinity (which is, by the way, not soteriologically necessary, but it is helpful for someone of intellectual stature who finds themselves confused by the Trinitarian doctrine or Trinitarian scriptural verses, for example, John 1:1-14 or Matthew 28:19).

dcalling · Dec 19, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
I think you need to look everything over again. Your nonsensical argument was thoroughly dismantled.

Where was my argument thoroughly dismantled? I can show it again, below is your evidences (with unrelated information removed):

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(1), and Shallum/Jehoahaz.
2. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31, 2 Chronicles 36:2).
3. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).
4. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).
5. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).
6. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah(2) (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).
7. Zedekiah(2) was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

Your questions is Zedekiah(2) can't be the same Zedekia(1), son of Josiah. I responded by saying they might not, they might be 2 different people. You response was:
"Every king must have a recorded lineage to show they are in the line of David. To suggest there is a king whose lineage is unrecorded is absurd. "
My response is "Zedekiah(2) was made king by Nebuchadnezzar, so he does not need to be related to anyone at all".

Why is that not a valid argument? Where is it "thoroughly dismantled"?

Nihilist Virus · Dec 19, 2015

dcalling said:
Where was my argument thoroughly dismantled? I can show it again, below is your evidences (with unrelated information removed):

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(1), and Shallum/Jehoahaz.
2. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31, 2 Chronicles 36:2).
3. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).
4. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).
5. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).
6. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah(2) (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).
7. Zedekiah(2) was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

Your questions is Zedekiah(2) can't be the same Zedekia(1), son of Josiah. I responded by saying they might not, they might be 2 different people. You response was:
"Every king must have a recorded lineage to show they are in the line of David. To suggest there is a king whose lineage is unrecorded is absurd. "
My response is "Zedekiah(2) was made king by Nebuchadnezzar, so he does not need to be related to anyone at all".

Why is that not a valid argument? Where is it "thoroughly dismantled"?

Your confusion is utterly monumental.

I'll highlight this:

Your questions is Zedekiah(2) can't be the same Zedekia(1), son of Josiah. I responded by saying they might not, they might be 2 different people.

You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about whatsoever. Please reread the footnote in the OP.

dcalling · Dec 19, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Your confusion is utterly monumental.

I'll highlight this:

Your questions is Zedekiah(2) can't be the same Zedekia(1), son of Josiah. I responded by saying they might not, they might be 2 different people.

You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about whatsoever. Please reread the footnote in the OP.

Look, I already read your whole statement, and I basically ignored what was an extra statement. Now I will list your full statement, with what I think is the extra Zedekiah as (X) because Z(X) is not even relevent.

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(1), and Shallum/Jehoahaz.
Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah(X).
2. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31, 2 Chronicles 36:2).
3. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).
4. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).
5. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).
6. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah(2) (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).
7. Zedekiah(2) was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

Your statement:
1. Zedekiah(1) is not Zedekiah(2)
2. Zedekiah(X) is not Zedekiah(2).

Which are both true, and Zedekiah(2) is just some one made king by Nebuchadnezzar, not Z(1) or Z(X).

So there is no conflict, none of the prophecies are violated.

I would like to see my "utterly monumental confusion".

dcalling · Dec 19, 2015

I should say:
Your statement:
1. Zedekiah(1), son of Josiah can't be Zedekiah(2) (due to age)
2. Zedekiah(X), son of Jehoiakim, grand son of Josiah can't be Zedekiah(2) (if it is, it is a violation of prophecy)

Which are both true, and Zedekiah(2) is just some one made king by Nebuchadnezzar, not Z(1) or Z(X).

So there is no conflict, none of the prophecies are violated.

redleghunter · Dec 19, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
So you are saying that Satan has tried for thousands of years to corrupt the Bible, but hasn't been able to, yet humans who are trying to preserve it as hard as they can are still finding ways to commit hundreds of blunders?

Other than the "still finding ways to commit hundreds of blunders" you have it right.

Perhaps visit the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and matters will clear up a bit. I posted it, the Westminster Confession and CCC views of inerrancy as well.

It's all there. I would expect if you want to contend with Christians on Biblical inerrancy you would learn their doctrines on such first.

If not why should Christians accept YOUR premise as valid?

redleghunter · Dec 19, 2015

dcalling said:
I should say:
Your statement:
1. Zedekiah(1), son of Josiah can't be Zedekiah(2) (due to age)
2. Zedekiah(X), son of Jehoiakim, grand son of Josiah can't be Zedekiah(2) (if it is, it is a violation of prophecy)

Which are both true, and Zedekiah(2) is just some one made king by Nebuchadnezzar, not Z(1) or Z(X).

So there is no conflict, none of the prophecies are violated.

Zedekiah the last king (vassal to Babylon) is the son of Josiah. Confirmed in Jermiah 1 and 37.

“It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the exile of Jerusalem in the fifth month.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭1:3‬ ‭NASB‬‬
http://bible.com/100/jer.1.3.nasb

“Now Zedekiah the son of Josiah whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had made king in the land of Judah, reigned as king in place of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭37:1‬ ‭NASB‬‬
http://bible.com/100/jer.37.1.nasb

But you are right. Zedekiah being King has no bearing on the lineage as he was a vassal King and his nephew Jehoiachin was in captivity as the rightful heir.

dcalling · Dec 19, 2015

redleghunter said:
Zedekiah the last king (vassal to Babylon) is the son of Josiah. Confirmed in Jermiah 1 and 37.

“It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the exile of Jerusalem in the fifth month.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭1:3‬ ‭NASB‬‬
http://bible.com/100/jer.1.3.nasb

“Now Zedekiah the son of Josiah whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had made king in the land of Judah, reigned as king in place of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭37:1‬ ‭NASB‬‬
http://bible.com/100/jer.37.1.nasb

But you are right. Zedekiah being King has no bearing on the lineage as he was a vassal King and his nephew Jehoiachin was in captivity as the rightful heir.

Wow!! Thanks! That is very informative. So there is an error here. I guess I will google Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Edit: Sorry that one is too long, don't have time to read it all, is there a way to reduce to just one or two sentences? i.e. I believe Bible could have human induced errors but God will keep the message straight.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 19, 2015

dcalling said:
I would like to see my "utterly monumental confusion".

Look again at what I highlighted from your quote. I said in the OP that either one or the other had to be King Zedekiah. You aren't indicating you've ever comprehended that. You keep positing this third Zedekiah, which is nonsensical.

Also, all of this is a moot point because redleghunter pointed out that Jeremiah 37:1 clearly identifies which Zedekiah it is. So there is a contradiction after all. Game over.

Wgw · Dec 19, 2015

It is my opinion that this thread represents nitpicking; the only people likely to be scandalized by the views of @Nihilist Virus are a minority of fundamentalists who can't handle, on an aesthetic level, the idea that minor inconsistencies are bound to crop up in a work like the Bible.

My view is that these errors are not material; they exist, but on minor points which are not relevant to Christian or indeed Jewish religious doctrine or praxis. They relate primarily to historical matters. They, by their presence, do not in my view challenge the idea of inerrancy; I regard the Bible as materially inerrant according to theological doctrine in a mystagogical context, as opposed to as a textbook on Semitic history (although the historical information contained in the Bible is extensive and valuable, it is not always precisely accurate or on my view intended for literal interpretation).

Just my twopence.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 19, 2015

redleghunter said:
Other than the "still finding ways to commit hundreds of blunders" you have it right.

Perhaps visit the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and matters will clear up a bit. I posted it, the Westminster Confession and CCC views of inerrancy as well.

It's all there. I would expect if you want to contend with Christians on Biblical inerrancy you would learn their doctrines on such first.

If not why should Christians accept YOUR premise as valid?

The Bible is not inerrant. We both agree there is an error. So before I invest in reading all of that, explain your nonsensical claim of how a book has errors in it but yet is inerrant.

redleghunter said:
But you are right. Zedekiah being King has no bearing on the lineage as he was a vassal King and his nephew Jehoiachin was in captivity as the rightful heir.

Jehoiachin was not the rightful heir:

Jeremiah 36:30

Jehoiachin's father is cursed and his seed were not supposed to inherit the throne, even though Jehoiachin actually did. Perhaps Jeremiah was a false prophet.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 19, 2015

Wgw said:
It is my opinion that this thread represents nitpicking; the only people likely to be scandalized by the views of @Nihilist Virus are a minority of fundamentalists who can't handle, on an aesthetic level, the idea that minor inconsistencies are bound to crop up in a work like the Bible.

My view is that these errors are not material; they exist, but on minor points which are not relevant to Christian or indeed Jewish religious doctrine or praxis. They relate primarily to historical matters. They, by their presence, do not in my view challenge the idea of inerrancy; I regard the Bible as materially inerrant according to theological doctrine in a mystagogical context, as opposed to as a textbook on Semitic history (although the historical information contained in the Bible is extensive and valuable, it is not always precisely accurate or on my view intended for literal interpretation).

Just my twopence.

Off topic as defined in the OP.

Also, there's this again:

So you are saying that Satan has tried for thousands of years to corrupt the Bible, but hasn't been able to, yet humans who are trying to preserve it as hard as they can are still finding ways to commit hundreds of blunders?

Wgw · Dec 19, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Off topic as defined in the OP.

Also, there's this again:

So you are saying that Satan has tried for thousands of years to corrupt the Bible, but hasn't been able to, yet humans who are trying to preserve it as hard as they can are still finding ways to commit hundreds of blunders?

On this point, you raise an interesting point, to which I would respond that Satan is bound by our Lord: he can only act according to the will of God; we are not dualists, and the Adversary and other demons have only very limited ability to act, to further the desires of God. Thus, I would consider it rather unlikely that they had been in any sense allowed to subvert sacred scripture to the detriment of the divine faith.

Now, if one did adhere to a dualist view, in the manner of Gnostics or Zoroastrians, you would have a point, and actually, the argument you present is one I would employ against dualists.

dcalling · Dec 19, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Look again at what I highlighted from your quote. I said in the OP that either one or the other had to be King Zedekiah. You aren't indicating you've ever comprehended that. You keep positing this third Zedekiah, which is nonsensical.

Not when none of us were aware of Jeremiah 37:1, because without that context nothing prevents the Zedekiah to be a third person. Of course it is all moot now other than some logical facts

Nihilist Virus said:
Also, all of this is a moot point because redleghunter pointed out that Jeremiah 37:1 clearly identifies which Zedekiah it is. So there is a contradiction after all. Game over.

This is just a minor contradiction, nothing game over with. After so many copies/years of compilations, Divinely inspired books can also have errors. Even our DNA, created by God, can be corrupted.

dcalling · Dec 19, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
So you are saying that Satan has tried for thousands of years to corrupt the Bible, but hasn't been able to, yet humans who are trying to preserve it as hard as they can are still finding ways to commit hundreds of blunders?

I would say the message of the Bible is not corrupted. But there can be human errors on numbers, places etc.

I doubt you can find hundreds of blunders though, you might be able to find maybe 10 or 20 in this book that was written over thousands of years by many different authors.

redleghunter · Dec 20, 2015

dcalling said:
Wow!! Thanks! That is very informative. So there is an error here. I guess I will google Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Edit: Sorry that one is too long, don't have time to read it all, is there a way to reduce to just one or two sentences? i.e. I believe Bible could have human induced errors but God will keep the message straight.

Both the Chicago statement and Westmimster confession on Biblical inerrancy covers it.

Recommend reading both as a readers digest version will just lead to misunderstandings as we see with the OP.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/clas...the-original-inerrancy-of-the-scriptures.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

redleghunter · Dec 20, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Look again at what I highlighted from your quote. I said in the OP that either one or the other had to be King Zedekiah. You aren't indicating you've ever comprehended that. You keep positing this third Zedekiah, which is nonsensical.

Also, all of this is a moot point because redleghunter pointed out that Jeremiah 37:1 clearly identifies which Zedekiah it is. So there is a contradiction after all. Game over.

We are back to your use of "contradiction."

Yes there is an imprecision. I offered such. The imprecision is clearly in 1 Chronicles 3 with regards to the birth order of Josiah's sons.

I say this because Jeremiah confirms the age as 21 for Zedekiah.

So the contention is a proposed 1 Chronicles 3 imprecision of a copyist given the available evidence.

Both books of Chronicles are part of the Writings.

Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")—hence TaNaKh.

redleghunter · Dec 20, 2015

Wgw said:
It is my opinion that this thread represents nitpicking; the only people likely to be scandalized by the views of @Nihilist Virus are a minority of fundamentalists who can't handle, on an aesthetic level, the idea that minor inconsistencies are bound to crop up in a work like the Bible.

My view is that these errors are not material; they exist, but on minor points which are not relevant to Christian or indeed Jewish religious doctrine or praxis. They relate primarily to historical matters. They, by their presence, do not in my view challenge the idea of inerrancy; I regard the Bible as materially inerrant according to theological doctrine in a mystagogical context, as opposed to as a textbook on Semitic history (although the historical information contained in the Bible is extensive and valuable, it is not always precisely accurate or on my view intended for literal interpretation).

Just my twopence.

Thank you!

What you outline above is almost word for word from the Evangelical Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy.

The Christian theologians are very few which would rage there are no copyist errors.

The material accuracy of the TaNaKh (OT) and the Brit HaHadashah (NT) is amazing.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 20, 2015

dcalling said:
I would say the message of the Bible is not corrupted. But there can be human errors on numbers, places etc.

I doubt you can find hundreds of blunders though, you might be able to find maybe 10 or 20 in this book that was written over thousands of years by many different authors.

Compare Ezra 2 with Nehemiah 7 and just that alone produces over two dozen errors.

Contradictions in the Bible

Infectious idea

Pray For Brussels!

Senior Member

Infectious idea

Senior Member

Senior Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Senior Member

Infectious idea

Pray For Brussels!

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Pray For Brussels!

Senior Member

Senior Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Infectious idea

Similar threads