-
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!
Errors And Contradictions In Bible
- Thread starter Ron68
- Start date
Oh, geez. Look, these are the original numbers. That cannot be disputed. You can say, "Yeah..well..you just made 'em up!" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that my assertion is the only one ever given that actually fits. It requires no fudging, no blind faith and no guessing. Using what has been discovered about the Hebrew language, demography of the Hebrew nation, wars and other conflicts between ancient nations, and just plain common sense this is what has been concluded to be the real figures. You may need a smoking gun to convince you that the conclusions you made up are false, but my conclusions are sound and the research is undeniable. This is the only logical explanation for the discrepancies, and your inability to accept that testifies of the fact that you really don't care what others say (prove). You're more concerned with proving your side of the story (which you can't).
How about some more?
These are examples of numbers being changed because of one tiny little Hebrew letter:
II Samuel 10:18 - 700 chariots
I Chronicles 19:18 - 7,000 chariots
II KIngs 24:8 - Jehoiachin is 18
II Chronicles 36:9 - Jehoiachin is 8
Look at Judges 20. The whole story makes no sense unless you reconcile the Hebrew with the realms of reality. Verse 2 mentions 400,000 soldiers; there were really 400. Vs. 15 is really 26 soldiers, plus 700 men armed with slings. In verse 21, 22 soldiers are lost. A further 18 are lost in verse 25. On the third day an ambush is set led by ten men (could ten thousand men take up their positions undetected? Not possible). Verse 31 is the key to this puzzle. It is preserved correctly. The people were smitten AS AT OTHER TIMES, and 30 Israelites were killed. The reason it wasn't written correctly is because they were not professional soldiers (remember that word gets mistaken for 1,000), they were regular Joes. 18 were killed in the first stage of the pursuit, 5 were later cut down in the highways, and 2 more at Gidom.
SImilarly, the assault on Ai (Joshua 7-8) makes better sense when the disastrous loss of 36 men is matched by the setting of an ambush, not of 3,000 men of valour, but of 30. Imagine 3,000 men losing 36 and running in horror. Can't happen. The difference between 36 and 30 is because more went that were not soldiers and were not numbered.
In I Kings 20:27-30 100 were killed, not 100,000. The wall of Aphek killed 27, not 27,000 (the Twin Towers didn't even kill 27,000 people). The Ethiopian invasion had a thousand, not a million warriors (II Chronicles 14:9). In II Chronicles 25:12 10 were cast down, not 10,000.
Knowing what we know (and what you refuse to accept) we can accurately put the Exodus party at a more believable 72,000, give or take.
These are examples of numbers being changed because of one tiny little Hebrew letter:
II Samuel 10:18 - 700 chariots
I Chronicles 19:18 - 7,000 chariots
II KIngs 24:8 - Jehoiachin is 18
II Chronicles 36:9 - Jehoiachin is 8
Look at Judges 20. The whole story makes no sense unless you reconcile the Hebrew with the realms of reality. Verse 2 mentions 400,000 soldiers; there were really 400. Vs. 15 is really 26 soldiers, plus 700 men armed with slings. In verse 21, 22 soldiers are lost. A further 18 are lost in verse 25. On the third day an ambush is set led by ten men (could ten thousand men take up their positions undetected? Not possible). Verse 31 is the key to this puzzle. It is preserved correctly. The people were smitten AS AT OTHER TIMES, and 30 Israelites were killed. The reason it wasn't written correctly is because they were not professional soldiers (remember that word gets mistaken for 1,000), they were regular Joes. 18 were killed in the first stage of the pursuit, 5 were later cut down in the highways, and 2 more at Gidom.
SImilarly, the assault on Ai (Joshua 7-8) makes better sense when the disastrous loss of 36 men is matched by the setting of an ambush, not of 3,000 men of valour, but of 30. Imagine 3,000 men losing 36 and running in horror. Can't happen. The difference between 36 and 30 is because more went that were not soldiers and were not numbered.
In I Kings 20:27-30 100 were killed, not 100,000. The wall of Aphek killed 27, not 27,000 (the Twin Towers didn't even kill 27,000 people). The Ethiopian invasion had a thousand, not a million warriors (II Chronicles 14:9). In II Chronicles 25:12 10 were cast down, not 10,000.
Knowing what we know (and what you refuse to accept) we can accurately put the Exodus party at a more believable 72,000, give or take.
No, you can not. You can, of course, pretend whatever you which, but there is no numeric sleight-of-hand that can possibly render the Exodus/Conquest narrative valid.dan said:
Ya gotta love it! :biglaugh:dan said:
JerryL
Well-Known Member
dan said:
dan said:
Really? I'd call "there an older version that says something entirely different from every existing version, and here's what it says: I made it up" rather guess-like to me.dan said:
Let me recap your position. No version of the Bible or Torah which you can present says what you claim was written. None. Zero. Not one. And it's not that they put a different number of zeros either, it's that they have entirely different numbers (you list 4 numbers while every version in existance has 2).
You could just as easilly apologized it as the work of evil pink unicorns that use brain-control aves to make me read the wrong numbers every time.
Try this one on for size: one or both passages is wrong.
I know. That's a leap. Nothing wrong has ever been written anywhere before. There are WMDs in Iraq, and aliens did land in Roswell, but maybe this author was mistaken.
You mean the one you invented? I wasn't setting crap. If you had a position, I would assert that your paranoia was undermining it.
Except for the fact that I can prove every step taken with irrefutable logic from our current versions back to my figures. That's not "making up," it's called the scientific process, and it is responsible for every truth you currently believe that is not the result of your own independent empirical study and research (and that's a lot of truths).JerryL said:
JerryL. said:
Yeah, that's my position.
That's my conclusion.JerryL. said:
Then why didn't you say, "My Hebrew version of II Samuel says this..." instead of, "hey, pull out the Hebrew from Sam and let's take a look," "can you pull out and repeat the numbers themselves," and "let's pull out the number from the Hebrew..."JerryL. said:
You wanted me to go look and go, "Oh, no! I didn't realize this is what they said. Wo is me, I've based my theories on falshoods! All is lost." One who respected me as a debator would have simply mentioned that Samuel said something different, but in the end I was being just as patronistic as you and I apologize.
En fin, attack my logic and not my character, for such is the pattern of self-agrandizing people fighting battles they know they've lost.
Fatmop
Active Member
I'm sorry. What, exactly, are you backing up - that the Bible originally said some such number, but was mistranslated? That the two differing accounts are actually one and the same?
I have a question, completely unrelated to the previous line of argument: Why does God command humanity not to kill, then command people specifically to kill? Seems like a pretty glaring contradiction.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
No, that's not called "scientific process". In fact, nothing's called "scientific process", perhaps you mean scientific method? Your not doing that either (lacking testiable predictions for example).
Let's try what I said in post #64:
"well shoot, can you find 2 Sam 24 in Hebrew? I'm having trouble tracking it down."
Based on the actual text, what reason might I have had for not saying "My Hebrew version says this"? Do you think, maybe, it's because I couldn't FIND a Hebrew version? That is, after all, exactly what I said.
No. Your conclusion is that one or more has been mis-copied. I assert that they were never right.
But you haven't presented any logic, beyond "my version makes an apology for why both don't match". You've offered no support at all that there were ever different numbers there, or that your claimed versions ("Israel 80 'lp, 30 'lp Judah 40 'lp, 70 'lp") ever existed.
I'll gladly discuss your support when you present some. Now stop wasting my time, and being a hypocrite, by discussing what you imagine I was intending to do, and deal with what I've actually said.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Except that he has the error occuring while still in Hebrew. So he has some native Hebrew copyist unable to understand Hebrew correctly, and changing the writing for no apparent reason... and then all of the copies of the original version being lost.Fatmop said:
That I'm going to have to disagree with... and dan's response here is really disappointing in light of how much his claims have relied on himself as a Hebrew authority.
The 6th commandment does not prohibit killing, it prohibits murder; which is killing in violation of the law. God is above the law, and all his killings are lawful. You can call them inconsistant with a loving god, but it gets far more into inferences than the simple ability to show two distinctly incompatable things.
Look, I'm tired of arguing semantics. I asked you to attack my logic, but you've done nothing but attack the way I've handled the argument since then. If you don't have a real argument against my figures then I'll have to bow out. If you think my conclusion is in error then show it, don't just speak about how unlikely you feel it is.
It is scientific method, and I feel pretty stupid about that one. My prediction was inferred: that the two scriptures at one point matched. By the way, I didn't feel this was a scientific journal, so I didn't feel it necessary to introduce my hypothesis, all the steps and a little chart to show you how I did it and where the grant money came from.
My support is my original post. If you have a problem that is where it should be directed, not at my character.
And I'm sorry to disappoint you.
It is scientific method, and I feel pretty stupid about that one. My prediction was inferred: that the two scriptures at one point matched. By the way, I didn't feel this was a scientific journal, so I didn't feel it necessary to introduce my hypothesis, all the steps and a little chart to show you how I did it and where the grant money came from.
My support is my original post. If you have a problem that is where it should be directed, not at my character.
And I'm sorry to disappoint you.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
My argument against your figures is that you invented them. My argument against your logic is that you've presented none at all.
I thought that matching was your hypothesis. You predect that they matched? OK, how shall we test that prediction? What is your hypothesis?
From your original post then:
Hebrew didn't have written vowels. What makes you believe that scribes wished it did? Which scribes are you referring to?
You base this assertion on what? You've no support as to what the "original texts" said. You do know that the original versions were oral?
And your support for this claim is what? In fact, you've not supported that 800 and 300 appear at all. There is no version of the Torah or Bible which containes four numbers in that passage (which you contend they did), both contain two numbers. Where's your support that there were originally four numbers and that these are the numbers?
Do you have anything other than complete conjecture?
OK, you assert that I invented my figures. Now the burden of proof lies with you; what makes you think I invented them?
How shall we test that prediction? Look at my original post. Test my math. It should all work out.
The scribes wished it did because it would have eliminated the guesswork from transcribing. After all, they tried so hard to preserve the original texts as much as possible. To make a mistake because you were confused as to what word is being used is a grevious error, and it's exactly what happened. I therefore conclude that the scribe's job would have been made easier with vowels, and they wished they had that luxury. I refer to the scribes that were copying the texts that have now ended up in our hands.
I base the numbers from the original texts on the figures that follow. I didn't begin with the original numbers, I started with the problem of how to reconcile the two scriptures. It became evident that throughout the Bible numbers were multiplied by ten on occasion (see my later post). It takes one little yod to change that, and (I don't know if you've ever looked at a fragment of ancient Hebrew, but it's not that easy to read) I figured those monumental figures were a result of that. Upon discovering that the words for "1,000" and "professional soldier" are identical without vowels it was only a simple math problem to figure out exactly what happened. The original versions of the New Testament were oral, but in Old Testament times everything was written down. That's why we have two accounts of the same stories throughout the Old Testament. The histories were very important back then. The discord in the book of Judges can be attributed to the loss of the Book of the Law, which contained the history of Israel and the commandments of God to them. This book is later found (II KIngs 22), and it changes the course of the Bible. Later, when the Jews returned from Babylon they were exhorted by Nehemiah to return to the scriptures. Ezra and Nehemiah are recordings of everything from who returned to Jerusalem to those whose geneologies could not be confirmed and therefore could not be given priesthood responsibilities (they should have held on to the written accounts, because oral accounts meant nothing back then).
Lastly, if my hypothesis that the word for soldier was confused with the word for 1,000 then there would have been two numbers: one for thousands and one for soldiers. My prediction was that the numbers were added together to arrive at the numbers we now have. After splitting the numbers into two different groups it was simple to arrive at a conclusion. By removing the accidental multiplication by ten I could put the numbers where they would better fit with what is known about the land, the wars and the people.
Is it the acme of foolishness for me to call that logic? Seems good to me. Any other concerns?
How shall we test that prediction? Look at my original post. Test my math. It should all work out.
The scribes wished it did because it would have eliminated the guesswork from transcribing. After all, they tried so hard to preserve the original texts as much as possible. To make a mistake because you were confused as to what word is being used is a grevious error, and it's exactly what happened. I therefore conclude that the scribe's job would have been made easier with vowels, and they wished they had that luxury. I refer to the scribes that were copying the texts that have now ended up in our hands.
I base the numbers from the original texts on the figures that follow. I didn't begin with the original numbers, I started with the problem of how to reconcile the two scriptures. It became evident that throughout the Bible numbers were multiplied by ten on occasion (see my later post). It takes one little yod to change that, and (I don't know if you've ever looked at a fragment of ancient Hebrew, but it's not that easy to read) I figured those monumental figures were a result of that. Upon discovering that the words for "1,000" and "professional soldier" are identical without vowels it was only a simple math problem to figure out exactly what happened. The original versions of the New Testament were oral, but in Old Testament times everything was written down. That's why we have two accounts of the same stories throughout the Old Testament. The histories were very important back then. The discord in the book of Judges can be attributed to the loss of the Book of the Law, which contained the history of Israel and the commandments of God to them. This book is later found (II KIngs 22), and it changes the course of the Bible. Later, when the Jews returned from Babylon they were exhorted by Nehemiah to return to the scriptures. Ezra and Nehemiah are recordings of everything from who returned to Jerusalem to those whose geneologies could not be confirmed and therefore could not be given priesthood responsibilities (they should have held on to the written accounts, because oral accounts meant nothing back then).
Lastly, if my hypothesis that the word for soldier was confused with the word for 1,000 then there would have been two numbers: one for thousands and one for soldiers. My prediction was that the numbers were added together to arrive at the numbers we now have. After splitting the numbers into two different groups it was simple to arrive at a conclusion. By removing the accidental multiplication by ten I could put the numbers where they would better fit with what is known about the land, the wars and the people.
Is it the acme of foolishness for me to call that logic? Seems good to me. Any other concerns?
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Because you've said as much. You've admitted that there's no text which says what you assert the original says (post 89 for example), and that you've hypothesisezd the numbers.dan said:
Are you asserting that you did not invent them? OK. Where did you get them from?
That's not what you said your prediction was. You said your prediction was:
that the two scriptures at one point matched. - post 94
Now you must actually test that they did match. You are simply appealing back to your prediction (they mach) to conclude your result (they match). It's circular.
The question is not whether A=A ("A" being your claimed syntax), but whether A was ever what was written down. How would you propose to establish the contents of the two passages in the "original texts"?
And your proof for this claim is what? Do you have written records of the scribes saying:
"I was transcribing the original torah today, darn this lack of vowels, I can't figure out if it says "thousand" or "soldier". Perhaps we should invent a more clear written language"
Seriously, where's your support?
But you didn't reconcile the two scriptures. You made up two new texts which matched, and for which you could create a hypothetical situation where you could get the numbers that actually appear in the real scriptures.
You have the same problem you've had since post one. You've done nothing at all to support that any of the events you propose actually happened.
Another unsupported assertation. The OT, according to Jewesh tradition, dates back at least to the time of Moses and the great wandering. It was oral at the time. In fact, the Jews actually have two parallel traditions, one written and one oral.
The NT, like the OT, has many authors and many histories. The most agreeable I've seen is that Matthew wrote a narritive of what Peter was saying, Mark copied Matthew's into a Hebrew version, Luke (a deciple of Paul) wrote a version of that more in-line with Paul's teachings, and John then wrote one with a different focus (claiming that the first three were not focused enough on Jessu). Paul, or his deciples, are credited with writing most of the other books, many of which existed in written form before ever being spoken (Paul's many letters to churches, such as Corinthians). (actually, I may have Matthew and Mark backwards, I do that)
Your new claim is also entirely contrary to established history and unsupported.
Exactly, there beign four (two pairs) of numbers in the original text is a prerequsite of your claim for which there is no proof (except an appeal to your claim).
It's an act of foolishness to ignore the fact that it's all entirely speculative. There's no support for it.
This is a joke. To designate this kind of hopeful speculation as 'serious research' is self aggrandizing silliness.dan said: