This crippled my faith

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi, I'm new here. Originally I posted this in the debate section and it got deleted. If I'm still in the wrong area, then I apologize.

I used to believe in inerrancy. It was a requirement for me as a Christian, and it would be a requirement for me to believe in the Bible once again. To me, the limit of faith is believing in something that is not verified... believing in something that is unverified but also self-contradictory is, in my opinion, past the limits of being reasonable.

I don't know how I feel about scribal errors as being an explanation for most of the passages in disagreement - as a Christian I wasn't thrilled, to say the least - but what I'm going to present below cannot be explained by scribal error since both accounts I'm quoting will agree with each other. It is a plain contradiction, but the explanations I've gotten for plain contradictions have always been utterly unsatisfactory. "Does it change what Jesus did for you on the cross?" Yes, actually, it does - at least to me - because if the Bible is self-contradictory then it is false.

So you have to understand that I am coming here with this question because it is very difficult to find someone who cares about this issue, even if I walk into a church. Anyway, here's my issue:



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 in italics 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.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Inerrancy is a fool's game. Pressed, even fundamentalists admit that it was the originals that were inerrant, not the copies (which were often altered.) Problem is, we don't have the originals, so the assertion of inerrancy is untestable.

IMO, the best way to test the texts is to try to reconstruct the historical and cultural background of the period and see if the texts make sense against them.

 

[paul1149]

I don't see why this was deleted from the debate section. Maybe there is a more appropriate Bible text forum, but it could have been moved rather than deleted. But since you framed this as a problem to your faith, I would think this forum is fine.

I can't give you an answer to your question, at least not right now. But I think a healthy dose of perspective would be very helpful. There is an OT verse that suggests that pi = 3. But that is not incorrect, it is imprecise, and that is ok because the Bible isn't an advanced math text. But perhaps more to the point, there is another verse that says the Philistines mounted 30,000 chariots in one battle. This is a figure that most historians simply believe is a scribal error.

Do these things matter in the big picture? I would say not. Jesus had an astonishing message and purpose, and if a scribe messed up it doesn't change what Jesus said or did. Even on important NT tenets, we are told never to take the witness of one verse, but to always consider context and compare line upon line. "At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall everything be established".

So I would suggest you look at your problem with a fresh perspective. Either a scribe made an error and it was incorporated in, or there is something going on here that we're not seeing. But whatever the case, it doesn't amount to anything significant.

Like the Bereans, we are to study the scriptures "to see if these things are so". But the faith life is essentially a life of trust, of letting go and trusting Jesus. I hope you do find your answer, but more than that I hope this little thing doesn't persist in being a stumbling block to a big thing, your wellbeing in Christ. That would be real error. If we demand to know everything before signing on the dotted line, that's not faith. Some answers come in time, as a result of faithful perseverance in what's already been given.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Hi, I'm new here. Originally I posted this in the debate section and it got deleted. If I'm still in the wrong area, then I apologize.

I used to believe in inerrancy. It was a requirement for me as a Christian, and it would be a requirement for me to believe in the Bible once again. To me, the limit of faith is believing in something that is not verified... believing in something that is unverified but also self-contradictory is, in my opinion, past the limits of being reasonable.

I don't know how I feel about scribal errors as being an explanation for most of the passages in disagreement - as a Christian I wasn't thrilled, to say the least - but what I'm going to present below cannot be explained by scribal error since both accounts I'm quoting will agree with each other. It is a plain contradiction, but the explanations I've gotten for plain contradictions have always been utterly unsatisfactory. "Does it change what Jesus did for you on the cross?" Yes, actually, it does - at least to me - because if the Bible is self-contradictory then it is false.

So you have to understand that I am coming here with this question because it is very difficult to find someone who cares about this issue, even if I walk into a church. Anyway, here's my issue:



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 in italics 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.

Fortunately, a Christian Scholar by the name of Dr. Norman Geisler has controverted these and another 600 + alledged contradictions of the Bible in his book called : WHEN CRITICS ASK available thru www.amazon.com . He posits that there are 17 mistakes Critics use when asserting their pronouncements .

Here is why I had trouble with my once Atheist faith and now I cant understand why anyone would think an atheistic worldview is credible in the least apart from just wanting to live an immorally-unencumbered lifestyle which is what my atheism was really all about : http://www.christianforums.com/t7813978/ ( Is an atheistic worldview credible ) ?

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Nihilism.
What's there to teach that mindset in matters of scripture?
Someone that has arrived at that place because they can't comprehend the scriptures they use to believe in isn't just confused by words on a page.

 

[Mediaeval]

Sometimes it may be simpler to cut through the knot than to untangle it. Even if we had the original manuscripts, most people would still have access only to a fallible translation and fallible pastors and teachers, with their teaching filtered yet again through our fallible brains. But why should their fallibility prevent the infallible God's communication with us? It is a more glorious thing and typical of the God revealed in Jesus Christ to use what is weak and even seemingly foolish to accomplish great ends (1 Corinthians 1). Be faithful to what light you have already been given and keep praying and asking your heavenly Father for wisdom. If you keep searching for it as for hidden treasure, you will find it (Proverbs 2).

 

[Aidan K]

Could Zdekiah be an adopted or stepson?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Inerrancy is a fool's game. Pressed, even fundamentalists admit that it was the originals that were inerrant, not the copies (which were often altered.) Problem is, we don't have the originals, so the assertion of inerrancy is untestable.

IMO, the best way to test the texts is to try to reconstruct the historical and cultural background of the period and see if the texts make sense against them.

I understand the Christian rebuttal to the problem of evil: God allows evil either as a result of free will or because he is actually allowing smaller evils for the greater good.

But what good comes of contradictions in the Bible? How is it a violation of free will to prevent a scribe from making a mistake when that is actually the scribe's will to begin with? Either God cannot prevent contradictions from occurring in the Bible, or he simply doesn't care. Which is it and why?


paul1149, I assume your response was with all the best intentions but I found it to be very offensive. Saying,

Do these things matter in the big picture? I would say not. Jesus had an astonishing message and purpose, and if a scribe messed up it doesn't change what Jesus said or did.

suggests to me that you either didn't care about or didn't read the part where I said,

It is a plain contradiction, but the explanations I've gotten for plain contradictions have always been utterly unsatisfactory. "Does it change what Jesus did for you on the cross?" Yes, actually, it does - at least to me - because if the Bible is self-contradictory then it is false.

Fortunately, a Christian Scholar by the name of Dr. Norman Geisler has controverted these and another 600 + alledged contradictions of the Bible in his book called : WHEN CRITICS ASK available thru www.amazon.com . He posits that there are 17 mistakes Critics use when asserting their pronouncements .

Here is why I had trouble with my once Atheist faith and now I cant understand why anyone would think an atheistic worldview is credible in the least apart from just wanting to live an immorally-unencumbered lifestyle which is what my atheism was really all about : http://www.christianforums.com/t7813978/ ( Is an atheistic worldview credible ) ?

And this is even more offensive. In the first paragraph you're trying to sell me something instead of answering my question. In the second paragraph, you are going off topic and trying to derail the thread.

Nihilism.
What's there to teach that mindset in matters of scripture?
Someone that has arrived at that place because they can't comprehend the scriptures they use to believe in isn't just confused by words on a page.

Where am I getting the idea that the Bible is supposed to be true? Is that your question? I am baffled.

Sometimes it may be simpler to cut through the knot than to untangle it. Even if we had the original manuscripts, most people would still have access only to a fallible translation and fallible pastors and teachers, with their teaching filtered yet again through our fallible brains. But why should their fallibility prevent the infallible God's communication with us? It is a more glorious thing and typical of the God revealed in Jesus Christ to use what is weak and even seemingly foolish to accomplish great ends (1 Corinthians 1). Be faithful to what light you have already been given and keep praying and asking your heavenly Father for wisdom. If you keep searching for it as for hidden treasure, you will find it (Proverbs 2).

My response to Steve Petersen applies here.

Could Zdekiah be an adopted or stepson?

Thank you for being the first person to actually address my question. The answer is no. David was promised that his seed would always have the throne. In fact that is an important argument as to why Jesus is supposed to be entitled to the throne. They would never have a king that is not of Davidic descent.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Where am I getting the idea that the Bible is supposed to be true? Is that your question? I am baffled.

My reply revolved around your OP self admission that you use to believe in inerrancy.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

My reply revolved around your OP self admission that you use to believe in inerrancy.

If the Bible has factual errors in it, then it is not factually true. At least not entirely. You then begin the game of trying to decide what is true and what isn't, which is an appeal to your own reason and intelligence. I have decided to just appeal to my own reasoning and intelligence in all situations, which means pitching the whole Bible.

So yes, I accept a mistake-free Bible or else I reject a Bible with even one mistake in it.

EDIT:

On second thought, "pitching the whole Bible" sounds a bit harsh and is not reflective of what I actually meant. Allow me to clarify:

Often times a person, when confronted with an issue that is factually problematic (such as the flood), will say that they believe in it "because it's in the Bible." If you wave the white flag on the issue of inerrancy, then you are basically saying that a person would not be reasonable in saying this. You obviously don't believe that contradictory things are true, so you can't say you believe in a contradictory thing just because it's in the Bible, and hence the reason for your belief in any passage of the Bible must come from your own intellect and reasoning. Instead of accepting the Bible as a whole, you are forced to evaluate each story, claim, or moral tenant on its own. The problem is that there are so many things wrong with the Bible besides the uninteresting contradiction laid out above, and any honest evaluation of the absurd parts of the Bible will result in rejection of them.

 

[paul1149]

you either didn't care about or didn't read the part where I said,

I did read it, do care about it, and offered a different perspective. If it doesn't appeal to you, that's fine. Adios.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I did read it, do care about it, and offered a different perspective. If it doesn't appeal to you, that's fine. Adios.

I am glad to hear that you did read it and that you do care about the situation, but the fact remains that the statement I highlighted was not a different perspective.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Either God cannot prevent contradictions from occurring in the Bible, or he simply doesn't care. Which is it and why?

This is why I tend toward Deism.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is why I tend toward Deism.

So you are non-Christian?

 

[Mediaeval]

My response to Steve Petersen applies here.

I don’t think those are the only two alternatives. If I started writing out my own Bible by hand, do you think God would be obligated to correct all my mistakes as I made them so that the resultant handwritten Bible would be error-free? Likewise, would you say that God is also obligated to make sure that all Bible translations are error-free so that readers will never be misled? Why or why not? Personally, I am content for God not to be that kind of a micromanaging helicopter parent. Meanwhile, it may be that all the apparent discrepancies will be satisfactorily resolved in time. Perhaps they already have been and you aren’t yet aware. Why be impatient? If God is good, if Jesus Christ fulfilled prophecies, worked miracles, loved enemies, rose from the dead, and still hears our prayers, what is so bad about an unresolved question, especially on a peripheral matter? “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2). Sometimes God expects us to exercise our faculties and search for a solution. For example, in Psalm 22:16b the Masoretic text reads, “Like a lion my hands and feet.” The Septuagint translates the Hebrew as if it read, “They pierced my hands and feet.” There are also a few Hebrew manuscripts that agree with the Septuagint. It is pretty obvious which reading makes more sense. I don’t know all the reasons why God might allow a scribal error to creep into some copies of the Scriptures, but if nothing else, if He allowed such things, it means that salvation does not depend, e.g., on knowing the precise number of Solomon’s horses. Blessed be God!

 

[Lukamu]

I understand the Christian rebuttal to the problem of evil: God allows evil either as a result of free will or because he is actually allowing smaller evils for the greater good.

But what good comes of contradictions in the Bible? How is it a violation of free will to prevent a scribe from making a mistake when that is actually the scribe's will to begin with? Either God cannot prevent contradictions from occurring in the Bible, or he simply doesn't care. Which is it and why?

God can prevent contradictions, but allowing scribal error isn't the same thing as simply not caring. I think you are trying to force either A or B, when there may be more answers to choose from. I would pick neither answer of the two because I think they are both incorrect, and continue to search for other possibilities.
Also, it is interesting to find a lack of research and explanation on the contradiction which you uncovered. I've never seen it or heard of it before, but after you pointed it out I did a bit of studying on my own, and you're right - it is a simple contradiction. Zedekiah is referenced elsewhere in the Bible as Jehoiachin's uncle (Josiah's son), and 1 Chronicles 3:15 clearly states that Zedekiah is older than Jehoahaz, while 2 Kings 23-24 and 2 Chronicles 36 show that Zedekiah is much younger than Jehoahaz. I hope that people will continue to add their logic to this discussion. (I have not added much to the solution myself, I admit!)
- Lukamu

 

[Steven Wood]

Hi, I'm new here. Originally I posted this in the debate section and it got deleted. If I'm still in the wrong area, then I apologize.

I used to believe in inerrancy. It was a requirement for me as a Christian, and it would be a requirement for me to believe in the Bible once again. To me, the limit of faith is believing in something that is not verified... believing in something that is unverified but also self-contradictory is, in my opinion, past the limits of being reasonable.

I don't know how I feel about scribal errors as being an explanation for most of the passages in disagreement - as a Christian I wasn't thrilled, to say the least - but what I'm going to present below cannot be explained by scribal error since both accounts I'm quoting will agree with each other. It is a plain contradiction, but the explanations I've gotten for plain contradictions have always been utterly unsatisfactory. "Does it change what Jesus did for you on the cross?" Yes, actually, it does - at least to me - because if the Bible is self-contradictory then it is false.

So you have to understand that I am coming here with this question because it is very difficult to find someone who cares about this issue, even if I walk into a church. Anyway, here's my issue:



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 in italics 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.

I think it's great that you're so dedicated in your study to find this. A lot of people, most everyone (including me) see begat and in their mind replace it with blah, blah. Not only is it wrong that it got deleted because it not only shook but it knocked your faith in what you believed, I think this also may have done what I've talked about and have been praying about for some time now.Through many,many years of deliberate changes and inaccuracies in the Bible and in doctrine of all denominations not just certain ones. We don't truly know the word or the will of God. I really am convinced That Jesus will give you the wisdom you seek. His word is infallible dear friend. No matter how much we try to corrupt it the truth is still there and if you pray and have faith you will find it.

 

[cuja1]

Hi, I'm new here. Originally I posted this in the debate section and it got deleted. If I'm still in the wrong area, then I apologize.

I used to believe in inerrancy. It was a requirement for me as a Christian, and it would be a requirement for me to believe in the Bible once again. To me, the limit of faith is believing in something that is not verified... believing in something that is unverified but also self-contradictory is, in my opinion, past the limits of being reasonable.

I don't know how I feel about scribal errors as being an explanation for most of the passages in disagreement - as a Christian I wasn't thrilled, to say the least - but what I'm going to present below cannot be explained by scribal error since both accounts I'm quoting will agree with each other. It is a plain contradiction, but the explanations I've gotten for plain contradictions have always been utterly unsatisfactory. "Does it change what Jesus did for you on the cross?" Yes, actually, it does - at least to me - because if the Bible is self-contradictory then it is false.

So you have to understand that I am coming here with this question because it is very difficult to find someone who cares about this issue, even if I walk into a church. Anyway, here's my issue:



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 in italics 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.

That's interesting, I've always believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, but more and more I question it a little. I've found many ways to resolve contradictions in the Bible. I think I will continue to believe that the Bible is from God, but what it is trying to tell us may not always be clear.

I wasn't able to fully look into these verses, but a couple things occurred to me. Is it possible that the Zedekiah is another brother of Jehoahaz? It's a stretch but maybe a possibility.

I also find the pattern in the number of years each king reigned to be odd. 11 years-3 months-11 years-3 months-11 years. I don't know what it means, but it seems to be of a format that is more mythical. Maybe, maybe not.

C.S. Lewis (a well known Christian apologist) mentions in one of his books (Miracles I think) that parts of the Old Testament may not be factual. They might actually be more of myths or legends for the Israelites. That doesn't mean God didn't want these stories there. Look at all the parables told in the gospels. Could it be that much of the Old Testament is more of a parable? I personally don't think the creation story is factual. I also don't believe that the story of the flood is factual either. Could it be? Maybe.

The most important thing is how can the Bible be applied to your life. Maybe, for now, it can not. Give it some time. If there is one verse from the Bible that every unbeliever SHOULD believe it this one:

Romans 10:13
"WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

Don't forget that one. By SAVED this does not mean forgiven for your sins, though God will do that too if you believe that Jesus died for your sins. This means that in the here and now, if you find yourself in trouble, if you find yourself teetering on the brink of life and death or if your life is ruined, God will rescue you. It's God's promise and God doesn't lie.

If you ever come to find that that verse is true, maybe you will be able to trust more verses in the Bible with time.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don’t think those are the only two alternatives.

Either God can or cannot do something. That is a true dichotomy. If he can, but doesn't, then you are free to explain why.

If I started writing out my own Bible by hand, do you think God would be obligated to correct all my mistakes as I made them so that the resultant handwritten Bible would be error-free? Likewise, would you say that God is also obligated to make sure that all Bible translations are error-free so that readers will never be misled? Why or why not?

I don't know that God is obligated to do anything. My simple argument is that I would tend to think that God would prefer for his message to not be self-contradictory, but yet here we are. If God is omnipotent and does not prevent this from happening, and if it has nothing to do with free will being violated because the scribes themselves surely had the freewill desire to make no mistakes, then what is the actual reason for contradictions in the Bible? This is an extremely important issue because it lends the Bible to open scrutiny and the "because it's in the Bible" response is thrown out the window.

Personally, I am content for God not to be that kind of a micromanaging helicopter parent.

Personally, I don't feel that an inerrant Bible is that much to ask from an omnipotent God.

Meanwhile, it may be that all the apparent discrepancies will be satisfactorily resolved in time.

Which is the entire reason I'm here, and yet you're skirting the issue.

Perhaps they already have been and you aren’t yet aware.

Research on the topic is entirely welcome. I don't require that you answer the question with your own knowledge.

Why be impatient?

I've been asking this specific question for over a decade and I've gotten nowhere.

If God is good, if Jesus Christ fulfilled prophecies, worked miracles, loved enemies, rose from the dead, and still hears our prayers, what is so bad about an unresolved question, especially on a peripheral matter?

I reject the "if" premise that you present. It is a different issue, and you're welcome to justify it on another thread or in private message, but that is off topic here.

And if you feel it's a peripheral matter, then may I ask you why it's presented in the Bible twice? Do you know God's plan better than he does?

“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2). Sometimes God expects us to exercise our faculties and search for a solution. For example, in Psalm 22:16b the Masoretic text reads, “Like a lion my hands and feet.” The Septuagint translates the Hebrew as if it read, “They pierced my hands and feet.” There are also a few Hebrew manuscripts that agree with the Septuagint. It is pretty obvious which reading makes more sense.

Entirely off topic.

I don’t know all the reasons why God might allow a scribal error to creep into some copies of the Scriptures, but if nothing else, if He allowed such things, it means that salvation does not depend, e.g., on knowing the precise number of Solomon’s horses. Blessed be God!

Salvation doesn't depend on knowing the number of horses in Solomon's army - that is quite obvious. Is that your answer as to why there are contradictions in the Bible? Because those portions of scripture simply don't matter? On what authority could you redact passages on the grounds that they are irrelevant to salvation? I assume you answer to God before you answer to your own reasoning, so if God wants these things in the Bible not once, but twice, and you say that these things are irrelevant, then who is right?

God can prevent contradictions, but allowing scribal error isn't the same thing as simply not caring. I think you are trying to force either A or B, when there may be more answers to choose from. I would pick neither answer of the two because I think they are both incorrect, and continue to search for other possibilities.

It is a pure dichotomy: either God can or God cannot prevent the errors from occurring. If you can refute that I'd love to hear it, but simply saying there are "more answers to choose from" tells me nothing. That's like saying there's a type of integer that is neither odd nor even, and I don't know what it is, but it's out there. No, it's not.

Also, it is interesting to find a lack of research and explanation on the contradiction which you uncovered. I've never seen it or heard of it before, but after you pointed it out I did a bit of studying on my own, and you're right - it is a simple contradiction. Zedekiah is referenced elsewhere in the Bible as Jehoiachin's uncle (Josiah's son), and 1 Chronicles 3:15 clearly states that Zedekiah is older than Jehoahaz, while 2 Kings 23-24 and 2 Chronicles 36 show that Zedekiah is much younger than Jehoahaz. I hope that people will continue to add their logic to this discussion. (I have not added much to the solution myself, I admit!)
- Lukamu

I appreciate the honesty and the genuine effort to actually pick up your Bible and look at this. Very few people actually even make it that far. Therefore you have added much more than you think.

I will offer my own explanation:

If you read the KJV, the word "uncle" is in italics, meaning that the translators inserted it for clarity. The original Hebrew word there actually just meant "male relative." I don't think it is the uncle Zedekiah, but rather the brother Zedekiah. My reasoning is that all of the relevant ages and reign timelines line up between Kings and Chronicles, making scribal error unlikely as the culprit for this contradiction. That results the uncle being eliminated and the brother being the actual king being described, which in turn results in the failed prophecy, which is of course equally (if not more) unsettling.

I think it's great that you're so dedicated in your study to find this. A lot of people, most everyone (including me) see begat and in their mind replace it with blah, blah. Not only is it wrong that it got deleted because it not only shook but it knocked your faith in what you believed, I think this also may have done what I've talked about and have been praying about for some time now.Through many,many years of deliberate changes and inaccuracies in the Bible and in doctrine of all denominations not just certain ones. We don't truly know the word or the will of God. I really am convinced That Jesus will give you the wisdom you seek. His word is infallible dear friend. No matter how much we try to corrupt it the truth is still there and if you pray and have faith you will find it.

I am puzzled that you openly accept contradictions in the Bible, and yet remain Christian. It is likely because you were indoctrinated into the faith and then later found contradictions, but your conditioning into believing was strong enough to keep you rooted in your faith (I don't know of anyone who would willfully pick up a new religion knowing that its one and only book contained contradictions).

Note that, as I said earlier, an infallible Bible allows for complete justification in saying that you believe something "because it is in the Bible." But now you can't say you believe in literally everything that the Bible says, which means you have to consult your own reasoning and intellect on a case-by-case basis for every claim. With the vast amount of errors, atrocities, absurdities, and morally reprehensible divine commandments, you owe it to yourself to subject the Bible's less savory passages to your intellectual scrutiny, since you likely did not do so before your conversion.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's interesting, I've always believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, but more and more I question it a little. I've found many ways to resolve contradictions in the Bible. I think I will continue to believe that the Bible is from God, but what it is trying to tell us may not always be clear.

I wasn't able to fully look into these verses, but a couple things occurred to me. Is it possible that the Zedekiah is another brother of Jehoahaz? It's a stretch but maybe a possibility.

You mean a third Zedekiah? You mean to suggest that a Jewish king's birth was not recorded? I thought they all had to be recorded - a king had no right to the throne unless he was of David's seed.

I also find the pattern in the number of years each king reigned to be odd. 11 years-3 months-11 years-3 months-11 years. I don't know what it means, but it seems to be of a format that is more mythical. Maybe, maybe not.

Entirely possible, but far more likely to be coincidence. Another possibility is that the records were lost as the Jews were being held in captivity, and they did not know the exact lengths of reigns other than to say that some kings were agreed to have had longer reigns than others, so "longer" reigns were recorded as 11 years whereas "shorter" reigns were recorded as 3 months. Even if this is true, it is a tangential issue, and this portion of the Bible is still quite obviously literal - even if it is not accurate. Lastly, the contradiction will remain regardless of which Zedekiah obtained the throne.

C.S. Lewis (a well known Christian apologist) mentions in one of his books (Miracles I think) that parts of the Old Testament may not be factual.

He is obviously quite right.

They might actually be more of myths or legends for the Israelites. That doesn't mean God didn't want these stories there. Look at all the parables told in the gospels. Could it be that much of the Old Testament is more of a parable? I personally don't think the creation story is factual. I also don't believe that the story of the flood is factual either. Could it be? Maybe.

You are opening a can of worms here, but I don't think you're doing enough to show that these passages we're examining are figurative. That would be quite a stretch. And even if we do assume it is figurative, it was still clearly not meant to be contradictory in the sense that I am presenting. Why did God allow the storyteller to be so clumsy?

The most important thing is how can the Bible be applied to your life.

I am thankful that neither I, nor you, nor anyone in the whole world applies the Bible to their lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Leviticus 25:44-46
Exodus 21:20-21

Maybe, for now, it can not. Give it some time. If there is one verse from the Bible that every unbeliever SHOULD believe it this one:

Romans 10:13
"WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

I've been searching for over a decade. How long do I have to wait for someone to care about the Bible's integrity so much that they will research this? I've done research on my own and I can't find anything - I need help.

Don't forget that one. By SAVED this does not mean forgiven for your sins, though God will do that too if you believe that Jesus died for your sins. This means that in the here and now, if you find yourself in trouble, if you find yourself teetering on the brink of life and death or if your life is ruined, God will rescue you.

Quite off topic.

It's God's promise and God doesn't lie.

2 Thessalonians 2:11

If you ever come to find that that verse is true, maybe you will be able to trust more verses in the Bible with time.

Perhaps.