[jolly]

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."

1. I never claimed that the bible was the perfect word of God.

2. The biblical accounts come from different sources and so as a result you always get, if you ask two different people what happened, slight differences in their account.

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...

Well yes only a child would read a piece of literature and say it means only what it says, have you never read shakespere?
But you are correct there are always concerns about how people interpret the message. The whole point of the parables is that they mean something different to what you think or rather the truth is something you have to dig for.

But you clearly think Jesus is actually talking about sheep.

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.

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?

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?

No again this is wrong, context is important, you cannot grab two separate sentences for different areas and say oh look they contradict it's all rubbish, because of the different subjects covered, the sentences of text must be related to the rest of the book they come from.

 
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.

Well again that to a degree is also true, some of the words they don't actually know how to translate, doesn't mean you should just ignore it though. "Oh there are a few words they cant translate properly, so we might as well just forget it". Come on, true scholars of the bible know the realities.

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?

There are lots of different groups that read the bible and they all have there own interpretation of the word, or there own set of customs, it seems to me your basically saying that ´well there are lots of difference and if it were real there shouldn't be´.

Well there are lots of differences in all areas of life(thats an expression of freedom) including science, lots of different theories. Following the line you are, I wonder why you follow or believe anything at all.

[Titanscape]

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, becuase 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.

[Bored chemist]

"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.

The phrase "God's word is a kind of perfect." kind of means something; "a kind of perfect" is like "slightly dead" or "mildly pregnant"; it doesn't make sense these are things that are, or are not, true; there's no middle ground.

and I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but if that contradiction is bothering you then the simple answer is to accept that the book's wrong.

[jolly]

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 do not dispute that they are inspried by God but, there will always be problems as people misinterpret Gods message, why do you think there are so many different religions?

"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.

And I would argue that really that lot are anything but Godly! Arrogant, judgemental, they have no humility at all and run around hurting people thinking that they act in Gods name, it's repugnant(bin laden is another one).

They have no humillity (after all, why should they- from their point of view, they are the only ones who are right).

Well they should- because humility is one of the most important elements within any religion. And very much so in Christianity, with pride the angels fell, many seem to forget that.

"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.

Sorry but really its arbitrary to, science and religion are not that different, you have to have faith in science to follow it. You never know if the next time you do your experiment that it will give the same result- that is faith in action.

[Titanscape]

You have faith in evolution, constantly proven right, proven errant and right and errant and searching for more evidence, a lot yet to be found... missing links, and found links that end up needing another...

The word of God is perfect in that, He knew the end from the beginning. His love is perfect and expressed in the book completely, using all of it. We have a reflection of Him, as a "dim mirror." Said Paul.

Revelations is deliberately not logical.

There are no deliberate or accidental contradictions, but it is possible for poor transcriptions and translations...

When used allegorically with the author, the Spirit, it is the highest revelation. And wisdom, and authoritative...

With it we can see perfectly true ideas and ways, but only dimly. Like looking at the moon with a telescope, not as clear as orbit or walking it.

When such as Ezekiel or Moses saw God, they could only know so well, as a humble person. They described God... accurately. We have this revelation. Accurate, true, no lies, no distortions, earthy, like Ezekiel was the soil, God's revelation the seed, and the word is the shoot. But the transcriptions are up to us. And it got real bad in the Nazi era with old books.

[VAlibrarian]

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.

[jolly]

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.

So would I []

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.

Well with regards to intelligent design, it trys to prove God exists. Which God doesn't want, proof denies faith. So I don't really know what they think they are playing at.