Kelly of the phoenix,,,,you don't believe in freewill? You claim to be a Nondenominational. I would suppose that means you are a Christian. So, how do you deal with scriptures that tell us we have Freewill, such as,,, "...the Lord isn't willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9. Do you then believe that all that have ever been created will be saved? Even when you see Scriptures that tell us the wicked will be destroyed, such as,,"Behold the day is coming, burning like an oven, And the proud, yes all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up." Malachi 4:1 ??? Gee, just look at the variety of creations. Are you of the mind that God made all these different races of people and yet none of them have a choice in anything they do under the sun? You must have doubt in God and His Bible to arrive at that position. Interesting.
-
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!
Favorite Bible error
- Thread starter Sand Dancer
- Start date
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
There's a whole lot of errors, inconsistencies and disproven things in it. If God was that keen on us learning the right things, they would be clear and we wouldn't have so many messed up views on it.
Thana
Lady
Pretty much everything that's been quoted so far in this thread I've looked up and have found pretty simple answers.
Kinda surprised people would link things they consider mistakes without actually doing any research into them beforehand but.... I digress.
And we do learn the right things. The bible is just a stepping stone, made by people, inspired by Him so that we too could come to the same understanding and relationship that they did. It is certainly not the be all and end all.
Skwim
Veteran Member
No, no. Please digress.
Here are three contradictions I posted, which qualify as mistakes, and I assume you looked them up. Please give us the "simple answers" that explain them.
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
- 2 Kings 8:26
1)- 2 Kings 8:26
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
- 2 Chronicles 22:2
_______________________________________
Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.
- II Samuel 6:23
2)- 2 Chronicles 22:2
_______________________________________
Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.
- II Samuel 6:23
The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.
- II Samuel 21:8
________________________________________
The number of fighting men of Israel was 800,000; and of
Judah 500,000
- 2 Sam 24:9
3)- II Samuel 21:8
________________________________________
The number of fighting men of Israel was 800,000; and of
Judah 500,000
- 2 Sam 24:9
The number of fighting men of Israel was 1,100,000; and of
Judah 470,000
-1 Chron 21:5
.
Judah 470,000
-1 Chron 21:5
.
Last edited:
Thana
Lady
"Was Ahaziah 22 or 42 years old when he became king of Judah? Ahaziah’s true age when he became king of Judah is easy to discern by further research. In 2 Kings 8:17, Ahaziah’s father Joram reigned for 8 years after beginning his reign at age 32. Joram was 40 when he died, showing that Ahaziah could not have been 42, but was instead 22 when he began his reign. So what does the 42 in 2 Chronicles 22:2 indicate?
There are two primary answers that Christian scholars have given. Either answer reveals there is no contradiction:
- The 42 is in reference to the beginning of the kingly reign of which Ahaziah is a part.
- This was a copyist error which changed the original 22 in 2 Chronicles 22:2 to 42."
Apparently it's a translation issue regarding the two phrases, “she bore to” and “she brought up,” meaning the same in the Hebrew.
So it's saying that she essentially adopted some kids, but yeah she didn't have any of her own.
Apparently the discrepancies in the number of men for Israel is because in Samuel they counted only battle experienced men and in Chron they counted them all.
As for Judah, it's already written why there are number differences. You just have to actually read the whole chapter. 1 Chronicles 21:6
Skwim
Veteran Member
The example remains a mistake.
Ah ha, the old John Gill theory, which the ignores that fact that the Hebrew word, ילדה, which Gill claims to mean "brought up," everywhere else in the Bible means "gave birth to."---68 times alone in Genesis. Why this peculiar, one-time irrational translation here? Because it conveniently dispenses with the contradiction. Gill would have done well working for AiG.
The example remains a mistake.
Not apparent at all, or is it supported by the text.
2 Sam 24:9
9 Joab gave the list of the people to the king. There were 800,000 men in Israel who could use the sword. And there were 500,000 men in Judah.
Not a thing at all about Joab's list counting only battle experienced men. Nor is there any indication of it in the entire chapter. 9 Joab gave the list of the people to the king. There were 800,000 men in Israel who could use the sword. And there were 500,000 men in Judah.
The example remains a mistake.
.
Thana
Lady
None of them remain mistakes, You've just brought up a counter-argument I see no facts anywhere.
Also, they were just quick examples I found. Other scholars have different theories, Like one in regards to Micah having 5 kids that instead it was a copyist error that was meant to say her sister.
And you know I'm not arguing for an infallible bible right? I'm not denying there are translation and copyist errors so there's no need to repeat the word mistake and put it in bold. I get it.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Thirza Fallen said, "There's a whole lot of errors, inconsistencies and disproven things in it. If God was that keen on us learning the right things, they would be clear and we wouldn't have so many messed up views on it."
You then replied, "Kinda surprised people would link things they consider mistakes without actually doing any research into them beforehand."
I then gave three examples of such mistakes, which you then attempted to refute. Had you not considered them relevant then why bother with your refutation, an attempt to show these were not mistakes?
But, as it turns out none of your attempts succeeded. My three examples most certainly remain mistakes based on their nature as contradictions; situations established according to their content and grammatical constructions. If they aren't contradictions then the onus falls on you to show they are not, which you failed to do. I was under no obligation to produce any facts showing you were wrong, but in the spirit of friendly exchange did attempt to show you the error in your attempt.
Thana
Lady
You didn't prove anything I said wrong, You just provided counter evidence, not proof. Seriously, do you buy your arrogance in bulk or what?
And I said what I said because one, they aren't necessarily mistakes and two, people just copy and pasted things they didn't even bother to read in context or research and that's just the kind of ignorance I despise the most especially when it's used to spread prejudice and lies about the religion I adhere to.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Now, now, let's play nice.
As they sit on the page, on the surface they are.
"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." does stand in contradiction to "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." Meaning they both can't be right.
"Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death." does stand in contradiction to "The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul." Meaning they both can't be right.
"The number of fighting men of Israel was 800,000; and of Judah 500,000" does stand in contradiction to "The number of fighting men of Israel was 1,100,000; and of Judah 470,000." Meaning they both can't be right.
"Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death." does stand in contradiction to "The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul." Meaning they both can't be right.
"The number of fighting men of Israel was 800,000; and of Judah 500,000" does stand in contradiction to "The number of fighting men of Israel was 1,100,000; and of Judah 470,000." Meaning they both can't be right.
So how to reconcile these contradictions so as to erase the mistakes they represent? One produces some kind of evidence that will reconcile them.
Does your
1. The 42 is in reference to the beginning of the kingly reign of which Ahaziah is a part.
or
2. This was a copyist error which changed the original 22 in 2 Chronicles 22:2 to 42."
Does your
Apparently it's a translation issue regarding the two phrases, “she bore to” and “she brought up,” meaning the same in the Hebrew.
So it's saying that she essentially adopted some kids, but yeah she didn't have any of her own.
So it's saying that she essentially adopted some kids, but yeah she didn't have any of her own.
do this for the Michal contradiction? Certainly not. Why? For the explanation I gave.
Does your
Apparently the discrepancies in the number of men for Israel is because in Samuel they counted only battle experienced men and in Chron they counted them all.
As for Judah, it's already written why there are number differences. You just have to actually read the whole chapter. 1 Chronicles 21:6
As for Judah, it's already written why there are number differences. You just have to actually read the whole chapter. 1 Chronicles 21:6
do this for your Judah contradiction? Certainly not. Why? For the explanation I gave.
Now, I gave you an explanation why I believe your reasons for reconciling each of the sets of contradictions are wrong, so how about giving me explanations why you believe my explanations are wrong. An explanation means explaining where the error lies, not a dismissive "I see no facts anywhere." For instance, why is my explanation "Not a thing at all about Judah's list counting only battle experienced men. Nor is there any indication of it in the entire chapter." wrong? IS there evidence in the Bible that Judah's list counted only battle experienced men, as you claim?
.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Did you know that your warning is absolutely meaningless to me?
Last edited:
Rapha
Active Member
Yep. Just as meaningless to the people who have not noticed that Albert Pike's World War 3 between Islam and Christianity has been up and running since Gulf War I 1991.
February 2016 is going to be so much fun for the evil jinn.
Thana
Lady
You're trying to tell me that because you personally don't find the site I quoted credible and because you personally don't think that a hebrew word with two meanings could possibly mean the second word instead of the word that was translated and because you obviously didn't read what I wrote since I said it was Israel that had the fighting men and Judah was the one with the bible verse that expains why it had two different numbers (Also of which you didn't address which makes me assume you realized you're own mistake and tried to stealithy gloss over it, which, kudos if you did)
I know you may not have realized this but your personal opinion is not Gospel.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Yeah, I didn't think you'd take me up on your challenge, so I think this pretty much ends our discussion here. Have a good day.
Thana
Lady
Honestly, I wasn't going to since I knew it'd turn out this way. I'd provide evidence and you would summarily dismiss it as not good enough.
But I didn't want anyone looking at this thread and actually thinking the people on it knew what they were talking about so I decided to take a shot.
And you have a good day too
It is not wise, IMO, to quickly assume the Bible is in error when seeming discrepancies are found. Many modern translations list Ahaziah's age at 22 in both Chronicles and Kings. Using a translation or version over 400 years old creates such confusion.
The traditional explanation about Michal is that Merab, Michal’s older sister, died early after having borne five sons to Adriel and that Michal thereafter undertook the bringing up of her sister’s five boys, thus resulting in their being spoken of as her sons. Isaac Leeser’s translation reads at 2 Samuel 21:8: “And the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she had brought up for Adriel.” Michal herself had no children of her own, as ll Samuel 6:23 affirms.
Similarly, the numbers at 2 Samuel and Chronicles of Israels fighting men may indicate that Samuel omitted some men Chronicles included in the account. As Insight on the Scriptures explains: "The two accounts may have reckoned the number from different viewpoints. For example, it is possible that members of the standing army and/or their officers were counted or omitted. And different methods of reckoning may have caused a variation in the listing of certain men, as to whether they were under Judah or Israel. "
I find amazing the Bible's accuracy in covering historical events spanning thousands of years.
Jesus sounds a lot like Apollonius of Tyana, just saying. (Even shares his supposed lifetime... Imagine that...)
Jehovah sounds a lot like Aten during the the monotheistic dynasty period in Egypt. It just happens about eleven centuries before the Jews get the idea....
Monotheisms generally arise out of frustrations with polytheisms -- it becomes harder and harder to appease a cluster of gods as your population diversifies. For example, in Roman and Greek cultures there were so many gods that there were feasts to them every week. When you need some issue resolved by the priests in polytheism you are having to take each problem to a different person which means you can be hiking all over the place to some shrine. Once you have a large society it becomes really difficult to do this -- eventually soft-polytheism creeps in (we see this with the Greeks, gods start handling problems outside of their area in the later eras...) and then the sham is eventually up once a suitable monotheistic deity is understood. Generally, there is no way to convert the masses without the use of force or government authorities and that was exactly how it was done. How correct the scriptures were is completely irrelevant as far as the current popularity contest.
Scripturally the creation stories of the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Celts, and even the Norse line up. Genesis doesn't... I would guess the outlier is the least correct. (Outside of the particular aesthetics of each religion...)
Mostly, these lead me to believe all Abrahamic religions are fabrications. Individual passages in the Bible may be true, but parts of the Illiad are as well.
Jehovah sounds a lot like Aten during the the monotheistic dynasty period in Egypt. It just happens about eleven centuries before the Jews get the idea....
Monotheisms generally arise out of frustrations with polytheisms -- it becomes harder and harder to appease a cluster of gods as your population diversifies. For example, in Roman and Greek cultures there were so many gods that there were feasts to them every week. When you need some issue resolved by the priests in polytheism you are having to take each problem to a different person which means you can be hiking all over the place to some shrine. Once you have a large society it becomes really difficult to do this -- eventually soft-polytheism creeps in (we see this with the Greeks, gods start handling problems outside of their area in the later eras...) and then the sham is eventually up once a suitable monotheistic deity is understood. Generally, there is no way to convert the masses without the use of force or government authorities and that was exactly how it was done. How correct the scriptures were is completely irrelevant as far as the current popularity contest.
Scripturally the creation stories of the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Celts, and even the Norse line up. Genesis doesn't... I would guess the outlier is the least correct. (Outside of the particular aesthetics of each religion...)
Mostly, these lead me to believe all Abrahamic religions are fabrications. Individual passages in the Bible may be true, but parts of the Illiad are as well.
Rapha
Active Member
Either way it doesn't matter because if World War 3 is rigged or not, 6.5 billion people are going to be wiped out over the following 10.5 years.
Either Albert spoke to a daemon which by the way, have foreknowledge of unique terminology, hence the certain words that Albert spoke even though certain politicial structures had not defined certain words at that time; or Albert was lucky.
Either way, WW3 will start next February whether the world likes it or not.
Rolling eyeballs ? Really. You know i said this January on another website that fire elementals will go on a killing spree this year.
The Rainbow dust going up in flames in the Tiawan pro-gay demonstration and China getting hit by so many factory explosions.
Then i said watch out for misery during the first 9 days of October. Well what happened to ISIS when Russia started to bomb them ?
i finished off with saying, by late November people would be wishing they could turn back time. PARIS 13-11-2015.
But no one listens and many threads get deleted because the truth of the future really hurts weak mods on other sites.