Bible Errancy?

[Kaonashi]

Some grab a KJV and look these up real quick. I was kinda stunned to see these errors. Don't bother using any other version because the errors seem to have been fixed.

* (a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;
* (b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;
* (c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8), 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8), 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);
* (d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;
* (e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;
* (f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;
* (g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);
* (h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);
* (i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);
* (j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;
* (k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;
* (l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;
* (m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);
* (n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);
* (o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;
* (p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:8), tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Some of these apparent contradictions can be reconciled, and some can't. The differences in numbers certainly indicate errors of some kind, but IMO, the accuracy of these numbers is not significant to any matter of faith, so why concern ourselves with them?

 

[jbarcher]

I agree with Liz. A logical conclusion that you may reach for some of these is that a scribe missed a number--it's called a "copyist error".

One other comment--the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy are extended to the copies insofar as they copy the original. Hence knowledge of the history of manuscripts is important.

 

[Kaonashi]

How do you know the original is flawless? Have you seen it?How do you know something was copied incorrectly if the original writings no longer exist?

 

[jbarcher]

That is a good question.

Certainly we do not now have the originals. Physically, it would be impossible for them to survive through the ages. Since the scripts cannot physically survive that long, we look then to the practices of those copying the texts: teh scribes. I personally don't know of any sites that speak about the scribes; however I am sure that others do.

But, just some points to watch out for:

- Did accuracy matter? If yes, what kind of methods did the scribes employ to ensure accuracy? (i.e. counting the number of letters) What happened to texts that didn't match up with the system?
- Was there a system to check if the text has been changed? For instance, are large amounts of people involved with the texts in some way? (Example: suppose every Sabbath there is Scripture reading. If the text was changed, wouldn't there be some people who sense something is odd?)
- Of all of the texts that we know of, have there been serious changes, or serious inconsistencies?
- Have we found any recent discoveries of texts that would confirm/deny that the current texts are safe?

And so on. As for the original being flawless, that is again a good question. If one sees sufficient reason to believe that God has spoken, and that the Bible is the word of God, it would be no great leap to view the originals as inerrant. Included in this sufficient reason is the historical accuracy of the Bible--are the people, places, dimensions suggested; is it probable that they are accurate? Hence archaeology is extremely useful.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Two questions:
1) Who wrote the Ten Commandments the first time?
2) Who wrote them the second?

 

[Unnamed Servant]

It is funny that this is mentioned. My pastor preached upon this issue last night. Our church website doesn't have the audio up yet but I will put a link up here whenever it is on the site.

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Love-In-Christ,

Unnamed Servant

 

[Unnamed Servant]

Ok sorry it took so long, my church website just put the audio up today. http://www.fbcpowell.com/Pages/Broadcast/Audio.htm Please listen to it, it will answer a lot of questions. It is the second one down.

Love-In-Christ,

Unnamed Servant

 

[statrei]

It is funny that this is mentioned. My pastor preached upon this issue last night. Our church website doesn't have the audio up yet but I will put a link up here whenever it is on the site.

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The problem with your pastor's sermon is that it begins with a misstatement. This verse is not a commentary on the Bible. It is a commtary on anything that is considered to be Scripture. The Bible NEVER claims that the Bible is the only Scripture. Nor does the verse say that Scripture is the ONLY thing that is given by inspiration. More importantly, there is no truth to the claim that because something is given by inspiration we must conclude that when it is transmitted by humans it is infallible. These are all false conclusions.

 

[statrei]

I'm sorry to say, but what your pastor preached in that sermon only reflects his discomfort with a concept. Even though the sermon explains why we should have confidence in the authority of the bible he does not really give us any sound reason why we should believe that Bible to be inerrant. I know that my textbooks all have errrors yet I trust them. This idea that a book written by ancient men who certainly did not have as complete view of God as I do today were able to produce a book without errors. It is ludicrous to claim that "God was able to make certain of that." That joke does not work. God was able to prevent Lucifer from rebellion and He did not. Is it more important to have an inerrant book than to have an inerrant universe?

 

[daveleau]

^ Mod hat on^


Keep posts to constructive criticism. Thoughtful dissent is welcomed, but outright attacks on the intelligence of others or their ideas is a big foul and will not be tolerated.

Thank you for your compliance,
daveleau
CF moderator


^mod hat off^

 

[Unnamed Servant]

Did you guys listen to the sermon?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Did you guys listen to the sermon?

Statrei did, and posted a critique that appears to summarize your pastor's main point - that God is able to create and preserve a perfect Bible, and since God is able to do this, it must be the case that God in fact did.

Is there another point? I, personally, don't plan to take the time to listen to a whole sermon. Sorry.

 

[statrei]

Did you guys listen to the sermon?

I listened to it twice before I made my final post. The discussions about neo-orthodoxy or theological liberalism did not really help to clarify the issue.

 

[@@Paul@@]

I'm sorry to say, but what your pastor preached in that sermon only reflects his discomfort with a concept. Even though the sermon explains why we should have confidence in the authority of the bible he does not really give us any sound reason why we should believe that Bible to be inerrant. I know that my textbooks all have errrors yet I trust them. This idea that a book written by ancient men who certainly did not have as complete view of God as I do today were able to produce a book without errors. It is ludicrous to claim that "God was able to make certain of that." That joke does not work. God was able to prevent Lucifer from rebellion and He did not. Is it more important to have an inerrant book than to have an inerrant universe?

Would you agree with the sermon from the POV that God CAN preserve His infallible words? - I would hope that's a yes. Man's problem is if we do not see a hand actually writting on the wall, we'll have a have time believing God is writing... "Greeks ALWAYS seek after knowledge".

God did not prevent Lucifer from rebellion, but He planned BEFORE that happened how to redeem mankind. - God is one step ahead. - Including preserving His words.

Can God use a fallible man to translate His word??? Look at the first example; God WROTE the ten commandments on the tables for Moses - What did Man do?? Destroyed His words.... Guess who wrote the Ten Commandments the next time?



I think it's "illogical" to assume God did not have a hand in preserving his words.

 

[statrei]

Who said they were God's words? Most of the Bible is clearly human commentary. Even Paul admitted in one part that he was only giving his own opinion. He went on to say that he only knew in part and prophecied in part. It is only modern humans who have insisted on burdening the Bible with a role it does not ever claim. God says He will write His law in our hearts. Why would He make any special effort to preserve those words when He has to constantly up-to-date ability to write His words in our hearts? If you say that the Bible is inerrant and that only the church can interpret it, I think it is easy to see who gains the authority, and it is not God.

I think it's "illogical" to assume God did not have a hand in preserving his words.

 

[jdrahnonfire]

I have a question. I have always wondered why the accounts of the angels after the resurrection were different in each gospel. One here. Two here. Can someone help?

 

[@@Paul@@]

Who said they were God's words? Most of the Bible is clearly human commentary. Even Paul admitted in one part that he was only giving his own opinion. He went on to say that he only knew in part and prophecied in part. It is only modern humans who have insisted on burdening the Bible with a role it does not ever claim. God says He will write His law in our hearts. Why would He make any special effort to preserve those words when He has to constantly up-to-date ability to write His words in our hearts? If you say that the Bible is inerrant and that only the church can interpret it, I think it is easy to see who gains the authority, and it is not God.

Paul's opinion was placed in the bible by the inspiration of God... God converted Paul on the damascus road > I value his opinion.

God says He WILL write His law in our hearts... as in - some future event. You first have to get to a postition were God CAN do that... Can this be done by the words and opinions of man?

........I never said only the church can interpret it the bible.... Every believer can, God gave YOU His word - not Man's opinion of his Word. If MAN wrote the bible, based on His feeling and "opinions" we are all doomed...

Modern humananity has done nothing but trash His words, cast doubts as to His ability to preserve them - as He said he would - and take away the very thing we need. Faith in God's ability.

 

[Crazy Liz]

........I never said only the church can interpret it the bible.... Every believer can, God gave YOU His word - not Man's opinion of his Word. If MAN wrote the bible, based on His feeling and "opinions" we are all doomed...

We each have different opinions about how to interpret the Bible, and those opinions color the way we think of the Bible's inspiration.

Paul, you believe the Bible is a book that can and should be interpreted by each individual for himself/herself. This is the traditional Baptist position. Since you believe the Bible was meant to be interpreted by individuals without the need for guidance from the Church or anyone else, you still need some parameters on biblical interpretation to prevent everyone from going off in some strange direction and interpreting it in bizarre ways.

You realize that when someone interprets the Bible alone, that interpretation has to be restrained in some way, or, as you said it, "we are all doomed." So you invented a particular narrow idea of how the Bible is inspired and how it is to be interpreted so as to make it seem posible for each individual to read, understand, and interpret it with no help from anyone else.

OTOH, those who hold a less individualistic view of biblical interpretation realize that they can rely not only on themselves, but on their brothers and sisters (both those in the church today and those who wrote and handed down their traditions in the past) to help them interpret the Bible. The idea that the Holy Spirit leads us collectively, rather than individually into all truth means we don't feel like we're all "doomed" when we can't understand something or misunderstand something.

I'm not sure I've said what I'm thinking very clearly. Maybe somebody else can add something or help me develop my thoughts into more cogent words. But ISTM the very narrow view of inerrancy is necessitated by the need for certitude in biblical interpretation when done independently by individuals. If we assume we need our brothers and sisters to help us, we let go of this whole need for individualistic certitude, and we can trust the scriptures without requiring them to be inerrant.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I have a question. I have always wondered why the accounts of the angels after the resurrection were different in each gospel. One here. Two here. Can someone help?

Sure. The events recorded in the gospels were passed on orally before they were written. When a story is preserved as an oral tradition, there will always be some variations in the way it is told. A few details very here and there, but the important details and the general outline of the story remain consistent. It's not important to know whether there was one angel or two. What is important is that Jesus rose early on the first day of the week; the tomb was miraculously opened; women witnessed this first; angel(s) appeared and explained what had happened; Jesus appeared to the disciples, both men and women, at different times and places over a 40-day period; Jesus was examined and proved to the satisfaction of these witnesses that he in fact had a physical body that bore the scars of the crucifixion, i.e. he was no ghost, apparition or halucination; and after 40 days he ascended into heaven, promising to return. These details do not vary. These are the parts of the story that are important to be preserved and believed. The details that vary are unimportant.