Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Four thousand STALLS = Forty thousand STALLS?
You must be a Republican, because that is some "fuzzy math."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Inerrant Bible???
- Thread starter Neo Deist
- Start date
Four thousand STALLS = Forty thousand STALLS?
You must be a Republican, because that is some "fuzzy math."
Tumah
Veteran Member
I'll admit that my math isn't that great, I had to take Math III twice to pass it. But my reading comprehension was fairly good. Again, what you quoted:Four thousand STALLS = Forty thousand STALLS?
You must be a Republican, because that is some "fuzzy math."
1 Kings 4:26And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
According to how you quoted the verses, 1 Kings says that there were 40,000 stalls of horses that were used for the chariots. But how many chariots were there? 2 Chron. says that there were 4,000 stalls that were used for horses and chariots. So taking both verses together, of the 40,000 stalls that Solomon had, 4,000 of them contained chariots in addition to horses.
Again, this is how you've quoted the verses and I don't necessarily agree on this translation. I'm just pointing out that what you quoted here is not a contradiction.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Subject to interpretation, and that is why so many people have questioned those verses.
Last edited:
Tumah
Veteran Member
That may be. But then you should have prefaced those verses by saying, "were one so inclined, despite plausible resolutions one could stubbornly maintain that there is a contradiction in the following verses:" etc.
I'm not sure that absence of evidence is basis for a strong case against the inerrancy of the Bible.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
Are you saying there isn't room for 40,000 horses on Earth?
Al Ibn Al Amra
Member
Al Nabi Al 'Iisa AS did not want to be ****ed , and that was absolutely true .
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The Inerrant Bible???
Does Jesus claim that Christian Bible is inerrant?Please
Regards
Does Jesus claim that Christian Bible is inerrant?Please
Regards
Don’t you really see the difference between “stalls of horses” and “stalls for horses”? They are not speaking of same matter, therefore there is no contradiction in that.
Those are not speaking of same God.
Those can be both true. Judas hang himself, the rope was cut off and he fell.
I wouldn’t have problem with people making mistakes in writing the Bible. But your examples don’t prove it. Your examples prove that the one who has collected them, don’t understand, or wants to deceive people.
You really can’t show even one real mistake in the original Bible. And I think that is strong evidence for that God has really guided the people who wrote and collected it. All you can do is those misinterpretations that tell more about the reader than about the writer.
Larry R Camp
Member
You do know that the 1947 Qumraan finds, show texts that were completely unaltered for up to over 2000 years. The 700 B.C dated fragment of Isaiah 51 even records GOD as the plural 3, when Jews did not accept the TRINITY. Learn facts and physical evidence, personal opinion is of no value when we are talking about ETERNAL SALVATION
Here is (IMO) an interesting article.
Larry R Camp
Member
Why don't you tell that to @
Alf Langdon and get his response
Now we know the infection had spread even to KS.
Alf Langdon and get his response
Now we know the infection had spread even to KS.
For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Without error, that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation". What is important is the qualification of "that truth" with "for the sake of our salvation."
rosends
Well-Known Member
the plural 3? Is there a different plural for 3 as distinct from the plural for 2 or 4? Please explain exactly how that works and thanks.
Larry R Camp
Member
There is a word for the singular, a word for the dual, and a word for plural, where it is commonly known to be 3, unless followed by a higher number. As the people who translated the texts, their reports are public record, not my statement those of the greatest scholars of the 20th century
Larry R Camp
Member
Pearl, you want to use your concepts to trap and limit GOD, but HIS MIND is so far beyond man that we can not even begin to fathom it.