Are there contradictions in the Bible?

[Guest]

i aggree to disagree with u

Hehe, okay.

 

[researcher]

King James version:

Mat 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Luk 23:44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Which one was it? The whole earth, or, the whole land?

Actually, if you look at the Greek wording, the same word is used in those verses for land and earth. The translators just interpreted the same word differently in those two places... God knows why. :bigfrown

You will run into that one a lot though. Land being translated as the whole earth, or, the whole earth as land. Lol. ;) :D I believe it has caused a lot of confusion and unnecessary angst in believers today and through the ages. :bigfrown ;)

 

[handy]

When you think about it Researcher, it's amazing that the Bible is a cohesive as it is. Considering how many years have gone by since the original texts were penned, how many different languages the texts were preserved in, and in trying to reconcile the modern languages with the surviving ancient texts it's...why one might say miraculous...that the Bible makes any sense at all.

 

[jasoncran]

When you think about it Researcher, it's amazing that the Bible is a cohesive as it is. Considering how many years have gone by since the original texts were penned, how many different languages the texts were preserved in, and in trying to reconcile the modern languages with the surviving ancient texts it's...why one might say miraculous...that the Bible makes any sense at all.

yes the word of god is a miracle that the creator of the universe would do this out of love, a message called the bible and he sent his only begotten to die for us on the cross

jason

 

[researcher]

When you think about it Researcher, it's amazing that the Bible is a cohesive as it is. Considering how many years have gone by since the original texts were penned, how many different languages the texts were preserved in, and in trying to reconcile the modern languages with the surviving ancient texts it's...why one might say miraculous...that the Bible makes any sense at all.

Amen to that!

 

[OnTheFence]

A lot of good responses there. Thank you. The thing that worries me though is if the Bible is supposed to be written by men who were divinely inspired by God. Why must it be complicated and seemingly contradictory? The fact that is has been interpreted differently over time (thanks researcher) makes sense.
How some can say that the Bible is fallible and there are contradictions but don't let that interfere with your faith is a new concept to me. My faith is based on the fact that Jesus lived a perfect life and died on the cross for my sins. These are lessons taught to me based on the scriptures. If the scriptures contain inaccuracies, then how am I to know which to pick and choose to base my faith on? Is it logical to say "don't worry about that part, concentrate instead on this part" and then to explain it away by saying that it isn't necessary to understand it to believe that it is true. That argument makes no sense.

The Holy Bible is supposed to be a sacred text is it not? If it is not the word of God then are we right to rely on it's content for our everlasting salvation. If it is the word of God (which I've always believed) then why the inaccuracies?

 

[turnorburn]

All if any of the contradictions stem from a meeting in the garden when the evil one
had Eve up against the ropes. Alone and by herself she became confused and we all
know who the author of confusion is.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

 

[researcher]

A lot of good responses there. Thank you. The thing that worries me though is if the Bible is supposed to be written by men who were divinely inspired by God. Why must it be complicated and seemingly contradictory? The fact that is has been interpreted differently over time (thanks researcher) makes sense.
How some can say that the Bible is fallible and there are contradictions but don't let that interfere with your faith is a new concept to me. My faith is based on the fact that Jesus lived a perfect life and died on the cross for my sins. These are lessons taught to me based on the scriptures. If the scriptures contain inaccuracies, then how am I to know which to pick and choose to base my faith on? Is it logical to say "don't worry about that part, concentrate instead on this part" and then to explain it away by saying that it isn't necessary to understand it to believe that it is true. That argument makes no sense.

The Holy Bible is supposed to be a sacred text is it not? If it is not the word of God then are we right to rely on it's content for our everlasting salvation. If it is the word of God (which I've always believed) then why the inaccuracies?

I believe the Holy Spirit is the one who shows a believer the correct interpretation if there is something seemingly contradictory, or difficult to understand.

2Ti 2:7 Consider what I say; for the Lord shall give thee understanding in all things.

1Jn 2:27 And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.

And that revelatory knowledge is supernatural, by the Holy Spirit.

 

[turnorburn]

A lot of good responses there. Thank you. The thing that worries me though is if the Bible is supposed to be written by men who were divinely inspired by God. Why must it be complicated and seemingly contradictory? The fact that is has been interpreted differently over time (thanks researcher) makes sense.
How some can say that the Bible is fallible and there are contradictions but don't let that interfere with your faith is a new concept to me. My faith is based on the fact that Jesus lived a perfect life and died on the cross for my sins. These are lessons taught to me based on the scriptures. If the scriptures contain inaccuracies, then how am I to know which to pick and choose to base my faith on? Is it logical to say "don't worry about that part, concentrate instead on this part" and then to explain it away by saying that it isn't necessary to understand it to believe that it is true. That argument makes no sense.

The Holy Bible is supposed to be a sacred text is it not? If it is not the word of God then are we right to rely on it's content for our everlasting salvation. If it is the word of God (which I've always believed) then why the inaccuracies?

I believe the Holy Spirit is the one who shows a believer the correct interpretation if there is something seemingly contradictory, or difficult to understand.

2Ti 2:7 Consider what I say; for the Lord shall give thee understanding in all things.

1Jn 2:27 And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.

And that revelatory knowledge is supernatural, by the Holy Spirit.

You beat me to it, I agree mate!.. :yes

 

[researcher]

You beat me to it, I agree mate!..

 

[Elijah674]

All my life I have been told, and believed that the Bible is the word of God and that it contained no contradictions yet recently an atheist friend of mine told me to read the first two chapters of Genesis and to take special note that the order of creation in chapter one is different from the order in chapter two. I assumed he was wrong until I read it and sure enough, in Genesis chapter one, the animals were created before man and then in Genesis chapter 2 it's the other way around. Can anyone shed some light on this? Is this a contradiction or is there more information that I should be aware of?

Hi, let me say this as how I see it, OK? The Books are all written by Holy Men of God. (Except for the Ten Commandments that God wrote Himself see Isa. 8:20) I think of these Bible writers as stated, that they were moved by the Holy Ghost! Now think of just the first four books of the New Testament. If it was as some think, there would not be 4 but just one, for they would all 4 be alike. So it is with the whole Bible, we need all the verses on one subject studied like puting a puzzel together to get the picture! That is why we see Isa. 28:8-10 + Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16-17 REQUIRED! ;) In a jury trial with sworn in witness testimony, they must all be heard to get the bottom/line verdict.. in this case, THE WHOLE TRUTH!

And yes, it was uninspired man who added the chapter numbers, periods & the like, so there are some few erors even there as well. But NOTHING to be overly concerened with.

--Elijah

 

[wavy]

Yes, there are many contradictions in the bible, including those between the two creation accounts. This is a fact that some one will have to accept or bury their head in the sand about once confronted with them.

I can excuse lay people for their amusing circus tricks in trying to explain away many of the contradictions, for my part. It's the conservative scholars that I cannot stand; they have the implements and education to know better, but they're reduced to outright intellectual dishonesty in order to hide away or rationalize contradictions. And that really upsets me.

But I'll join the mix, confirm the contradiction raised by the OP between Gen i & ii and pose a couple random ones of my own.

There are more contradictions between the creation accounts than the order in which man and animal were created, but we'll reserve those for another time. Contrary to handy's assertion that God 'had formed' the animals and brought them to Adam, this is grammatically unacceptable in the Hebrew and just amounts to special pleading. The vav conversive/consecutive does not allow a pluperfect rendering. This is precisely why the transmitters behind Hebrew text of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX read: 'And God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field...'

Josephus explained away the differences between the two accounts with the following rationalization: 'Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically...' (Antiq. i.1.2.)


Now on to some others.

For example, the traditions concerning Jerusalem during the Conquest are totally confused. Jos xii.10 & Jg i.8 claim Jerusalem was conquered, but contrast Jos xv.63 & Jg i.21.

In another instance, 2K xvi.20 & 2Ch xxviii.27 are also in direct conflict. The Deuteronomist honors Ahaz, despite his injustices, with interment beside his royal ancestors. The Chronicler, on the other hand, is not so favorable and denies him the good company.

For a last example, when Saul was encamped at Gibeah he called for the ark of the covenant to be brought to him for an oracular consultation (1S xiv.18-19); but earlier the narrative placed the ark at Kiriath-jearim (1S vii.1), where it remained 20 years until David removed it to his new capital in Jerusalem (2S vi.3-4, 12). The LXX alters 'ark' to 'ephod', obviously to eliminate the contradiction.

Finis,
Eric

 

[Blazin Bones]

I do not need "intellectual dishonesty" to explain these "Contradictions". Mere reason and a bit of common knowledge.

For example, the traditions concerning Jerusalem during the Conquest are totally confused. Jos xii.10 & Jg i.8 claim Jerusalem was conquered, but contrast Jos xv.63 & Jg i.21.

Firstly, neither passage describes the conquest, but rather both give different detail about the same city. Joshua 12.10 simply tells that the King of Jerusalem had been removed. It does not say that the people had not been tolerated and so the may not have been removed. Hence there is no clear contradiction.

In another instance, 2K xvi.20 & 2Ch xxviii.27 are also in direct conflict. The Deuteronomist honors Ahaz, despite his injustices, with interment beside his royal ancestors. The Chronicler, on the other hand, is not so favorable and denies him the good company.

2 Kings 16:20 only mentions the burial city not the location as the Chronicler does. Perhaps the later added that peice to further expound on history. Both Passages do agree on the city and that he died. You cannot confirm a contradiction if one author does not includes as many details as the other. Perhaps if the tomb could be found, then one story could be confirmed. So here to Innocent until proven elsewise.

For a last example, when Saul was encamped at Gibeah he called for the ark of the covenant to be brought to him for an oracular consultation (1S xiv.18-19); but earlier the narrative placed the ark at Kiriath-jearim (1S vii.1), where it remained 20 years until David removed it to his new capital in Jerusalem (2S vi.3-4, 12). The LXX alters 'ark' to 'ephod', obviously to eliminate the contradiction.

I do not see where any of the given passages mention that the Ark NEVER moved from the Home of Abinidab. All these passage show is that perhaps Abinidab was the one who had "custody" of the ark when it was not being moved at the request of the king. Even if you could show a passage where it does mention that the ark did not move from the Home of Abinidab, this would still be subject to simple generlizations not being understood or know. To say "The Ark Remained at the Home of Abinidab for 20 years until David hoved it to Jerusalem" Simply again implies that Abinidab was the care taker of the Ark and Kiriath-jearim was where the caretaker lived.

So as you can clear "contradictions" are not as easy to find as you would think. Just a little more study and what many ask for, an open mind, and answer become easy to find.

 

[Elijah674]

--Elijah here:
Contraditions? I do not [waste] much time with this kind of such stuff as I do intensley believe believe my other post of seperately inspired Holy Men of God using their own pen + word discriptions! Yet satan has tried to 'falsley' copy & counterfiet all of the Lords truth. Not just to cast doubt of & on its Obedience! Here is just one more that has been incorporated in his work in the past & the future. And If 'i' am called down, I will look up the scripture for you. 2 Tim. 3:16 & Matt. 4:4. But from here on it will just be street talk. ;)

Tongues? A Voice? Eternal Covenant? Eternal Gospel? When did they start???
Lets start with an Word 'remember', remember from when? God is the same Eternally! Just say that I loaned this person ten dollars, and next year I said, do you remember that you owe me that $10? He said that he paid me back the next day! Well, how long was that remember for? Did it have any starting place & ending condition? Surely! But what about with the immortal Godhead? That in itself is an Doctrine! And the Eternal Gospel of Rev. 14:6 has NO STARTING POINT!
Even in Gen. 6:3 we see that Noah preached with the STRIVING OF THE HOLY GHOST accompaning his Gospel of Rightousness.

OK: The 4th 'Eternal' Covenant Commandment even started with the Word of Remember the 7th. Day Sabbath. Remember from where? It was written down on two tables of stone in Mount Sinai. But where did that 4th Commandment start? Or when & why? Could the Godhead be truthful using Their Word Remember if there was not always an after truth? Even being the Eternal Covenant of the Universe that told us why Lucifer fell? And what sin is! The breaking of this Law! 1 John 3:4

And a Voice? The Godhead talked to Adam & Eve in a Voice, They talked to Cain in a voice, Even Abram was talked with before he became Abraham, & given Verbal Eternal Covenant laws +! The Godhead talked to mankind up to the time of the Written Covenant, up to the time that they told Moses to tell God that they did not want to hear God speak, but that they would have Moses speak what God Commanded. And the Godhead OK'ed that request. And one 'see's' the thread of 'ARE THERE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE?' Just think of what mankind has done with the Eternal Covenant of the Godhead alone! Heb. 13:20

Then the 'tongues' or languages?? After the flood at the Tower of Babel (confusion) two of the Godhead put all the languages in effect, to stop the building of the tower. (and other reasons, huh?) So we see that originally the Lords creation had only one language & God spoke with Their creation as They so choose.. in at least a voice!

We find that in Acts when the Early Rain of Joel 2 & Acts 2 came about, that there were many different .. 'devout men, out of EVERY NATION UNDER HEAVEN.' It was Pentecost & they were all 'in one place'! Wow! What confusion would come from this if the Godhead were the Order Of Confusion! ;) But they are not. We know what happened!? And no, it was not a bunch of disorderly gibberish as we hear of today. (Rev. 17:5)
Remember that for every perfect gift that the Godhead has, satan has tried to copy it! (and Paul's tongues? Acts 21:37 & 22 ibid. 1-3.

This will all happen again! (Eccl. 1:9-10 + Eccl. 3:15) Think of the little United Nations as using New York as the example? In the latter Rain we will again see this 'Perfect' Gift abound! Acts 3:19. Also think of the 144000 in the real United Nation court trial, with the Latter Rain of the Holy Spirit having all [DEVOUT] listeners hearing this trials proceedings in their own native language, if need be. And one last thought. What does one think made Saul in Acts 9:4-5 be 'pricked' in his heart by the Holy Ghost, if it was not the 'testimony of Christ' at Stephen's trial, and Saul being a party to his stoning to death?

 

[Joe67]

There are distinctions between the child in the womb, the newborn baby, the 3 yr old infant, the 12 yr old adolescent, the fully developed youth, the young adult, the old adult, the body returned to the earth?
Yet it is one being. The form is constantly changing. Seeing the child in the womb before the sexual identification is formed, or the newly born baby and seeing the body in the casket, the different manifestations are hardly recognizable as one and the same. How would you know it is one and the same?

Our Lord Jesus spoke of the differences between his ministry and the baptist's ministry. Jesus then said that wisdom is justified of her children.

The living creature in Ezekiel 1 has four faces, yet it goes straight forward.

Noah had 3 sons. Ham sought to make an issue where there was no issue; for Noah was in his own tent. Ham is cursed. Shem and Japeth walked backwards to cover their father.

Let us not add to the words of the prophecy. Let us not take away from the words of the prophecy.

We add through stiff-necked self justification. We take away through sorcery and philosophy in taking the name of the Lord in vain.

Joe

 

[wavy]

I do not need "intellectual dishonesty" to explain these "Contradictions". Mere reason and a bit of common knowledge.

A noble commitment. Let's see if you've lived up to it:

Firstly, neither passage describes the conquest, but rather both give different detail about the same city. Joshua 12.10 simply tells that the King of Jerusalem had been removed. It does not say that the people had not been tolerated and so the may not have been removed. Hence there is no clear contradiction.

Neither passage describes what's taking place during the Conquest? Curious...that's exactly what's taking place here. Israel invaded Canaan under Joshua to massacre its inhabitants and arrogate their land; in other words, speaking of 'common knowledge', this is a 'conquest' and all exegetes know it by that name. But I suspect this knowledge is not so 'common' as I originally thought...hmm.

And capturing a king is equivalent to capturing his land. I see you failed to take note of Jos x.42, which records the victory of the Israelites over the coalition of 5 kings (including Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem) mentioned earlier in the chapter. Or did you think the Israelites tip-toed into Jerusalem, kidnapped the single person of its king (nevermind his army), 'tolerated' its citizens by putting them to the sword, and ignited the city while the citizens listlessly (and miraculously) continued on with their daily routines? (again, see Jg i.8.)

I think you need to read the passages I referenced again, then return and see if you can formulate a proper rebuttal, if at all.

2 Kings 16:20 only mentions the burial city not the location as the Chronicler does. Perhaps the later added that peice to further expound on history. Both Passages do agree on the city and that he died. You cannot confirm a contradiction if one author does not includes as many details as the other. Perhaps if the tomb could be found, then one story could be confirmed. So here to Innocent until proven elsewise.

Let me explain this to you, if I may. You are correct: both passages agree that Ahaz was buried in Jerusalem. Where they conflict, however, is on whether he was interred with his ancestors in the quarter of Jerusalem called the 'city of David'. 2K xvi.20 says he was interred in the royal catacombs there with his ancestors--2Ch xxviii.27 says he was not. This isn't a matter of this or that omitted detail. Both texts state two opposing things. This is a direct and genuine contradiction.

I do not see where any of the given passages mention that the Ark NEVER moved from the Home of Abinidab. All these passage show is that perhaps Abinidab was the one who had "custody" of the ark when it was not being moved at the request of the king. Even if you could show a passage where it does mention that the ark did not move from the Home of Abinidab, this would still be subject to simple generlizations not being understood or know. To say "The Ark Remained at the Home of Abinidab for 20 years until David hoved it to Jerusalem" Simply again implies that Abinidab was the care taker of the Ark and Kiriath-jearim was where the caretaker lived.

1S vii.2 clearly states the ark remained at Kiriath-jearim for 20 years, therefore it could not have resided with Israel at Gibeah during Saul's campaign against the Philistines (see 1Ch xiii.3). The Greek translator (or the scribe of the Hebrew Vorlage from which he worked) was aware of this and corrupted the text. These two passages--1S vii.2 & 1S xiv.18-19--within the broader context of 1-2Samuel simply don't agree. The contradiction stands.

So as you can clear "contradictions" are not as easy to find as you would think. Just a little more study and what many ask for, an open mind, and answer become easy to find.

It took more fancy interpretive effort on your part, besides your total neglect of a number of inconvenient passages for you, to harmonize these verses than it took for me to point out these very obvious contradictions in the first place. The answers haven't come as easily as you think...because you haven't given any. Thanks for setting an example of precisely what I was talking about in my previous post.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Blazin Bones]

I do not need "intellectual dishonesty" to explain these "Contradictions". Mere reason and a bit of common knowledge.

A noble commitment. Let's see if you've lived up to it:

Neither passage describes what's taking place during the Conquest? Curious...that's exactly what's taking place here. Israel invaded Canaan under Joshua to massacre its inhabitants and arrogate their land; in other words, speaking of 'common knowledge', this is a 'conquest' and all exegetes know it by that name. But I suspect this knowledge is not so 'common' as I originally thought...hmm.

And capturing a king is equivalent to capturing his land. I see you failed to take note of Jos x.42, which records the victory of the Israelites over the coalition of 5 kings (including Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem) mentioned earlier in the chapter. Or did you think the Israelites tip-toed into Jerusalem, kidnapped the single person of its king (nevermind his army), 'tolerated' its citizens by putting them to the sword, and ignited the city while the citizens listlessly (and miraculously) continued on with their daily routines? (again, see Jg i.8.)

I think you need to read the passages I referenced again, then return and see if you can formulate a proper rebuttal, if at all.

Now let's be a bit more precise here which is typically what those looking to devalue scripture seek. Is it describing the actual conquest, (Ex: Battles, troops, who killed who when) or just that a change of power has taken place? Maybe it's a hair not worth splitting?

From here it is an easier remedy thatn you realize. Again, neither passage describes the way in which the conquest occured, simply that through some conquest that the King of Jerusalem was killed. This by no means proves that the people were killed. Just their leader. Perhaps more, but to say all the citizens of that kingdom were killed would be assuming on the text. I'm not going to do that, are you?

[quote:1s7001nn]Let me explain this to you, if I may. You are correct: both passages agree that Ahaz was buried in Jerusalem. Where they conflict, however, is on whether he was interred with his ancestors in the quarter of Jerusalem called the 'city of David'. 2K xvi.20 says he was interred in the royal catacombs there with his ancestors--2Ch xxviii.27 says he was not. This isn't a matter of this or that omitted detail. Both texts state two opposing things. This is a direct and genuine contradiction.

Regardless of what Wikipedia currently says, when the Bible speaks of the City of David they spoke of Jerusalem proper. Not the expansions that have occured from then on up until today. This is only a contradiction when you use just modern knowledge to explain a text that is thousands of years old. Ask any Christian to tell you what the City of David means, and they will tell you Jerusalem itself. So when the 2 Kings speaks of City of David, it is just giving Jerusalem as the city, not meaning current day Ophel.

1S vii.2 clearly states the ark remained at Kiriath-jearim for 20 years, therefore it could not have resided with Israel at Gibeah during Saul's campaign against the Philistines (see 1Ch xiii.3). The Greek translator (or the scribe of the Hebrew Vorlage from which he worked) was aware of this and corrupted the text. These two passages--1S vii.2 & 1S xiv.18-19--within the broader context of 1-2Samuel simply don't agree. The contradiction stands.

First, I commited a a major flaw in my reply by not regarding context and seeing verse 2. So noted. However, you have completely ignored my response. All it takes is a different is an open mind to understand that one author is stating that it remained at Abinidab for 20 years, it may not be literally never moving, but that this was where it was brought when not on display. Think about it. In modern Baseball we claim that the Giants remained in New York until they moved to San Fansisco. Does this mean they always played at home? The same logic can be applied to the location of the ark. At the end of the Day, the ark resided at Abinidabs.

You may see this as assuming on the text, but it is not. This is because when an apparent contradiction is raised it is proper to think about the test and see if there is a meaning where there is not a contradiction that is possible and plausible and this case there is.

As for the Septuagent, all this means is that there was a translation error in the septuagent. Greeks can't speak perfect hebrew.

It took more fancy interpretive effort on your part, besides your total neglect of a number of inconvenient passages for you, to harmonize these verses than it took for me to point out these very obvious contradictions in the first place. The answers haven't come as easily as you think...because you haven't given any. Thanks for setting an example of precisely what I was talking about in my previous post.

[/quote:1s7001nn]

Fancy and neglectfull, hardly my respondent. I took the time to study the text and understand it in a way that makes sense. You just come at the text with a Bias to disprove it so you cannot see the logic or reasoning. I set no other example other than that of one willing to be open in how to read and know God's word is true, and not the best at that either.

 

[wavy]

Now let's be a bit more precise here which is typically what those looking to devalue scripture seek.

Nobody is devaluing scripture here. At least not I.

Is it describing the actual conquest, (Ex: Battles, troops, who killed who when) or just that a change of power has taken place? Maybe it's a hair not worth splitting?

'The Conquest' is the name given by all scholars to the story of the Israelite invasion of Palestine...splitting hairs has nothing to do with this.

Again, neither passage describes the way in which the conquest occured, simply that through some conquest that the King of Jerusalem was killed. This by no means proves that the people were killed. Just their leader. Perhaps more, but to say all the citizens of that kingdom were killed would be assuming on the text. I'm not going to do that, are you?

Again, please read the plain text of Jos x.42, xii.1, 10 & Jg i.8.

Regardless of what Wikipedia currently says, when the Bible speaks of the City of David they spoke of Jerusalem proper. Not the expansions that have occured from then on up until today. This is only a contradiction when you use just modern knowledge to explain a text that is thousands of years old. Ask any Christian to tell you what the City of David means, and they will tell you Jerusalem itself. So when the 2 Kings speaks of City of David, it is just giving Jerusalem as the city, not meaning current day Ophel.

Please go back and read what the contradiction I highlighted is. Wikipedia has nothing to do with this.

First, I commited a a major flaw in my reply by not regarding context and seeing verse 2. So noted. However, you have completely ignored my response. All it takes is a different is an open mind to understand that one author is stating that it remained at Abinidab for 20 years, it may not be literally never moving, but that this was where it was brought when not on display. Think about it. In modern Baseball we claim that the Giants remained in New York until they moved to San Fansisco. Does this mean they always played at home? The same logic can be applied to the location of the ark. At the end of the Day, the ark resided at Abinidabs.

In this context the 'open mind' you speak of is a euphemism for reading things into the text that it does not say. Also, you missed 1Ch xiii.3.

As for the Septuagent, all this means is that there was a translation error in the septuagent. Greeks can't speak perfect hebrew.

This is not a 'translation error' of any kind. Funny that you would suggest it considering that the Greek translators didn't 'err' translating the Hebrew word for 'ephod' elsewhere. How would they have done that, exactly?

And btw, you totally ignored the point about the possibility of the alteration occurring not in the process of translation from Hebrew to Greek, but in the Hebrew manuscript from which the Greek translator was working (which is more likely).

Fancy and neglectfull, hardly my respondent. I took the time to study the text and understand it in a way that makes sense. You just come at the text with a Bias to disprove it so you cannot see the logic or reasoning. I set no other example other than that of one willing to be open in how to read and know God's word is true, and not the best at that either.

No, I am the one staying faithful to the text, not trying to 'disprove' it. You are the one trying to read between the lines to make it say something it doesn't because of your own obvious presuppositions about inerrancy.

Finis,
Eric

 

[Elijah674]

It was Christ who NEVER CHANGES who STATED in Matt. 24:14 [[THIS TRUTH]]..

[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Now, is that hard to understand? Does one need the Arm of Flesh to understand that??? DO YOU BELIEVE CHRIST/GOD??????? This was 'DOCUMENTED' when Christ was still on earth!!

OK: This is the verses from Paul's INSPIRATION here below, DOES ONE BELIEVE THE [[TWICE REPEATED (Gen. 41:32)]] WORDS OF [[THE HOLY SPIRIT'S INSPIRATION]]? that IS THE QUESTION? First Christ/God, and then the Holy Spirit/GOD tells us a FACT EVEN AFTER CHRIST LEFT FOR HIS HIGH PRIESTLY WORK in heaven above...

Rom. 10 is dated around AD 60, 10 years before the Destruction of Jerusalem & after Christ's DOCUMENTATION of Matt. 24:14!

[14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

[15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

[16] But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

[17] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[18] But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

But surely we need the hermeneutics of the arm of flesh for that first INSPIRED Verse from God, huh?
And this is not an eror in translations EITHER, it is these type verses that one needs Godly UNDERSTANDING ON!

And the Godhead does not leave it there either! In Col. 1:22 we find 'Steadfast' MATURITY REQUIRED of the Godhead as well as knowing Truth! This was penned in AD 64, and again before AD 70's slaughter of Jerusalem!

WHY DID CHRIST NOT COME????????? If there is NO THUS SAYETH THE WORD OF GOD.S ANSWER, one is still on 'milk' & (or worse!) surely one will then need the ream's & ream's of satan's ARM OF REV. 17:5 ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH flesh stuff to give you the answer, huh!

OK: Col. 1
[21] And you, that were (?)sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled(?)

[22] In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

[23] If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard,
(hold it right there for re/flection!!! That IS NOT O.S.A.S. Arm of Flesh GARBAGE EITHER!!)

and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;


Until one can BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD & ALL OF HIS CONDITIONS FROM GEN. ONE ON, he has NO IDEA OF WHAT BEING SETTLED IN THE FAITH MEANS!! Eph. 4:5 Nor of Christ's DOCUMENTED WORD OF MATT. 24:14's [[TRUTH!!]]

--Elijah

 

[Elijah674]

All my life I have been told, and believed that the Bible is the word of God and that it contained no contradictions yet recently an atheist friend of mine told me to read the first two chapters of Genesis and to take special note that the order of creation in chapter one is different from the order in chapter two. I assumed he was wrong until I read it and sure enough, in Genesis chapter one, the animals were created before man and then in Genesis chapter 2 it's the other way around. Can anyone shed some light on this? Is this a contradiction or is there more information that I should be aware of?

Hi, let me say this as how I see it, OK? The Books are all written by Holy Men of God. (Except for the Ten Commandments that God wrote Himself see Isa. 8:20) I think of these Bible writers as stated, that they were moved by the Holy Ghost! Now think of just the first four books of the New Testament. If it was as some think, there would not be 4 but just one, for they would all 4 be alike. So it is with the whole Bible, we need all the verses on one subject studied like puting a puzzel together to get the picture! That is why we see Isa. 28:8-10 + Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16-17 REQUIRED! ;) In a jury trial with sworn in witness testimony, they must all be heard to get the bottom/line verdict.. in this case, THE WHOLE TRUTH!

And yes, it was uninspired man who added the chapter numbers, periods & the like, so there are some few erors even there as well. But NOTHING to be overly concerened with.

--Elijah

It was Christ who NEVER CHANGES who STATED in Matt. 24:14 [[THIS TRUTH]]..

[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Now, is that hard to understand? Does one need the Arm of Flesh to understand that??? DO YOU BELIEVE CHRIST/GOD??????? This was 'DOCUMENTED' when Christ was still on earth!!

OK: This is the verses from Paul's INSPIRATION here below, DOES ONE BELIEVE THE [[TWICE REPEATED (Gen. 41:32)]] WORDS OF [[THE HOLY SPIRIT'S INSPIRATION]]? that IS THE QUESTION? First Christ/God, and then the Holy Spirit/GOD tells us a FACT EVEN AFTER CHRIST LEFT FOR HIS HIGH PRIESTLY WORK in heaven above...

Rom. 10 is dated around AD 60, 10 years before the Destruction of Jerusalem & after Christ's DOCUMENTATION of Matt. 24:14!

[14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

[15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

[16] But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

[17] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[18] But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

But surely we need the hermeneutics of the arm of flesh for that first INSPIRED Verse from God, huh?
And this is not an eror in translations EITHER, it is these type verses that one needs Godly UNDERSTANDING ON!

And the Godhead does not leave it there either! In Col. 1:22 we find 'Steadfast' MATURITY REQUIRED of the Godhead as well as knowing Truth! This was penned in AD 64, and again before AD 70's slaughter of Jerusalem!

WHY DID CHRIST NOT COME????????? If there is NO THUS SAYETH THE WORD OF GOD.S ANSWER, one is still on 'milk' & (or worse!) surely one will then need the ream's & ream's of satan's ARM OF REV. 17:5 ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH flesh stuff to give you the answer, huh!

OK: Col. 1
[21] And you, that were (?)sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled(?)

[22] In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

[23] If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard,
(hold it right there for re/flection!!! That IS NOT O.S.A.S. Arm of Flesh GARBAGE EITHER!!)

and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;


Until one can BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD & ALL OF HIS CONDITIONS FROM GEN. ONE ON, he has NO IDEA OF WHAT BEING SETTLED IN THE FAITH MEANS!! Eph. 4:5 Nor of Christ's DOCUMENTED WORD OF MATT. 24:14's [[TRUTH!!]]

--Elijah

OK: Me again!
2 Peter 1:20-21 only states that these men were ALL USED of the Holy Spirit! Let's remember that there are 66 Books that are in your question. Surely one does not believe that these penman used the Godheads exact Wording for their discriptive picture do we??? There are some words that the site would even block out. (piss & bastard for examples)

And again: This is why you need Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16's COMPLETE PEN to understand any contradictions & get the Real Trial data. Even as has been stated, otherwise one of the first four books of the N.T. would only be needed. Even Eccl. 3:15 finds not ALL EXACTLY alike!