0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
OK, since you mention it, here's a qupote from that site "How many stalls and horsemen?KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.CH2 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."
The bible says that there were 40,000 and that there were 4000.Only one of these can have been right and so there's a contradiction. At most one of those can be the work of a perfect God, but they are both in the bible.As you say, there are scores of others but 1 is quite enough to prove that the Bible is imperfect and, therefore, not the Word of a perfect God. Either He's not perfect, or the Bible isn't His word.As you say, that site also gives the "explanations" but there aren't that many; here's the list."Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?
4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.
5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said." Did you notice that it was poining out that these "explanations" don't work?
God's word is a kind of perfect. But 400 or 4000 is a latter transcriber's error most probably. Must check and see if Hebrews has a decimal system.With me personally I don't need to check, because of spiritual experiences and more difficult contradictions like Mary's ancestry in Matthew and Luke. One is actually Jospeh's and one is Mary's, Jesus ancestors recorded.The trialsome contradiction for me is, Joel "I will restore the years the locust has eaten." the at least two fold restoration versus "you will be the least in heaven."It has eaten at me suffering me since before I was a Christian.
"I never claimed that the bible was the perfect word of God."I know you didn't, but there are plenty of people out there who think it is. They don't take it metaphorically.When you say "Not really sure whet your getting at here. Only fundamentalists act so stupidly, it is quite arrogant to say what I believe is the total truth and if you don't believe me your evil, where is the humility there?" you are perfectly correct; unfortunately the fundamentalists do exist.
They have no humillity (after all, why should they- from their point of view, they are the only ones who are right).
"Come on, true scholars of the bible know the realities."No 2 of them seem to agree what they are."I wonder why you follow or believe anything at all. "Generally, I believe things for which there is evidence. If there is no evidence I usually say I don't know. If new evidence overturns a belief of mine then I accept that and change what I believe. These collectively are the sort of things that distinguish science from religion.
Dear Jolly, Titanscape, Bored Chemist & Co. -I have problems with religious nutters here in the USA. Their big thing here is that they want public schools to stop teaching Darwin and start teaching "creation science". I would rather kiss a pig than see that happen.
I think it is a mistake to argue with them over contradictions and paradoxes in the Bible. They don't get it when you do that. We have a writer here named Bart Ehrman who likes to analyze and point out the copy errors and the made-up stories in the bible that were done over the centuries by copyists before the printing press, and the various gospels that the early christian bigwigs decided were inconsistent with their message, and therefore jettisoned. It's fascinating stuff. In a way this whole thing is a bit like those optical illusion drawings. Is it a fish or the nose on an elephant? Depends on your point of view- and there is no changing your mind from one view to the other.