• Love God, and love one another!

    Share your heart for Christ and others in Godly Love

    https://christianforums.net/forums/god_love/

  • Want to discuss private matters, or make a few friends?

    Ask for membership to the Men's or Lady's Locker Rooms

    For access, please contact a member of staff and they can add you in!

  • Wake up and smell the coffee!

    Join us for a little humor in Joy of the Lord

    https://christianforums.net/forums/humor_and_jokes/

  • Need prayer and encouragement?

    Come share your heart's concerns in the Prayer Forum

    https://christianforums.net/forums/prayer/

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes coming in the future!

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Bible flaws and contradictions?

Classik

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
13,694
Reaction score
338
I know there are typographical erros, grammatical mistakes, content translation erros and inconsistencies and other erros (e.g The Holy Book of God could emerge today as a bible edition and make some erros while forming their own edition).
--
So, if you have found any erros other than those above let me know. Erros like (contradictions, flaws and whatsoever etc ):D

or do we mean human erros?

''Originall posted by the others...
.
.
There are errors in the bibles, I have seen flaws
I can now look at the Bible without blinders and see that there are in fact flaws, contradictions, and errors without having to resort to mental gymnastics that border on dishonesty.

What's interesting is that I, too, have for quite some time, looked at "the Bible without blinders and see that there are in fact flaws, contradictions, and errors without having to resort to mental gymnastics that border on dishonesty," but it has done absolutely nothing to erode my faith or make me question the validity of Scripture.
 
I would caution to only compare versions of the Bible with the "original" languages and not anything other. To carry the title of "Version" the Bible must not have been "translated" from another version nor be a paraphrasing etc. but referenced back to the "original language" transcripts.

There are no contradictions nor flaws in the Hebrew and Greek. There may be some confusion only perhaps in variations in our English (i.e.) language today and before, and also that with such a language as Greek that has a myriad of words to define any nuance of difference and try to find the same in English (i.e.) is impossible. ;)
 
Matthew 2
After Jesus was born in BethLehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, {Look!} Magi from the east came to JeruSalem, <SUP>2</SUP> asking, 'Where is the one who was born king of the Judeans? We saw his star in the east and we came to bow before him.'
<SUP>3</SUP> Well, on hearing about this, King Herod was very disturbed (as was all of JeruSalem). <SUP>4</SUP> Then he gathered all the Chief Priests and the peoples' scribes and asked them where this Anointed One was to be born. <SUP>5</SUP> And they replied, 'In BethLehem of Judea, because this is what was written through the Prophet:
<SUP>6</SUP> And you, O BethLehem, in the land of Judea,
Are certainly not least among the rulers of Judah.
For a ruler will come out of you,
To shepherd IsraEl, My people.'

According to history, Herod (Hebrew: הוֹרְדוֹס‎, Hordos, Greek: Ἡρῴδης, Hērōidēs), also known as Herod the Great (born 73 or 74 BCE, died 4 BCE in Jericho<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1]</SUP>), was a Roman client king of Judea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
http://www.bible-history.com/herod_the_great/HERODTimeline.htm
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Religion/OTA/OTA-Other/Herod.htm

According to Matthew Jesus was born sometime during or before 4 bce.

Luke 2:
<SUP>
<SUP>1</SUP> Back in those days, Caesar Augustus had decreed that everyone on earth had to be registered, <SUP>2</SUP> and this first registration took place when QuiRinius was the governor of Syria. <SUP>3</SUP> So, everyone had to return to his hometown to be registered. <SUP>4</SUP> And as the result, JoSeph had to travel from NazarEth in Galilee to David's city of BethLehem in Judea (because he was from the house and family of David) <SUP>5</SUP> to be registered with Mary, whom he married as he promised, and who was pregnant. <SUP>6</SUP> And it was while they were there that it came time for her to have her baby. <SUP>7</SUP> So she gave birth to her first son and wrapped him tightly in a cloth, then laid him in a feed trough (because there wasn't any room for them in the lodge).


According to history, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 6 ce. That's at least 9 years after when Matthew says Jesus was born. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
"Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (Greek Κυρήνιος - Kyrenios or Cyrenius, c. 51 BC - AD 21) was a Roman aristocrat. After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus from the tetrarchy of Judea in AD 6, Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria, to which the province of Iudaea had been added for the purpose of a census.<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1]"</SUP>


The 2 accounts are contradictory and therefore either 1 is wrong and the other is right, or both are wrong. Regardless, the 2 are not reconsilable which means that at least one is NOT God inspired..........

</SUP>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would caution to only compare versions of the Bible with the "original" languages and not anything other. To carry the title of "Version" the Bible must not have been "translated" from another version nor be a paraphrasing etc. but referenced back to the "original language" transcripts.

There are no contradictions nor flaws in the Hebrew and Greek. There may be some confusion only perhaps in variations in our English (i.e.) language today and before, and also that with such a language as Greek that has a myriad of words to define any nuance of difference and try to find the same in English (i.e.) is impossible. ;)

Lovely!:yes
 
There's also the issue of Stephen's errors as recorded in Acts 7. Here's what www.Christianthinktank.com says on the matter:


Indeed, Stephen's speech in Acts 7 contains several problems, with four of these in verses 2-8 (including the two you mention). But his usage is well within the parameters of acceptableness in the day. So, Longenecker (EBC, in.loc., emphasis mine): <DIR><DIR>"There are a number of difficulties as to chronological sequence, historical numbers, and the use of biblical quotations in Stephen's address that have led to the most strenuous exercise of ingenuity on the part of commentators in their attempts to reconcile them. Four of these difficulties appear in vv. 2-8. Verse 3 quotes the words of God to Abraham given in Genesis 12:1 and implies by its juxtaposition with v. 2 that this message came to Abraham "while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran," whereas the context of Genesis 12:1 suggests that it came to him in Haran. Verse 4 says that he left Haran after the death of his father, whereas the chronological data of Genesis 11:26-12:4 suggests that Terah's death took place after Abraham's departure from Haran. Verse 5 uses the words of Deuteronomy 2:5 as a suitable description of Abraham's situation in Palestine, whereas their OT context relates to God's prohibition to Israel not to dwell in Mount Seir because it had been given to Esau. And v. 6 speaks of 400 years of slavery in Egypt, whereas Exodus 12:40 says 430. "We need not, however, get so disturbed over such things as, on the one hand, to pounce on them to disprove a "high view" of biblical inspiration or, on the other hand, to attempt to harmonize them so as to support such a view. These matters relate to the conflations and inexactitude of popular Judaism, not necessarily to some then-existing scholastic tradition or to variant textual traditions. In large measure they can be paralleled in other popular writings of the day, whether overtly Hellenistic or simply more nonconformist in the broadest sense of that term. Philo, for example, also explained Abraham's departure from Ur of the Chaldees by reference to Genesis 12:1 (De Abrahamo 62-67), even though he knew that Genesis 12:1-5 is in the context of leaving Haran (cf. De Migratione Abrahami 176). Josephus spoke of Abraham's being seventy-five years old when he left Chaldea (contra Gen 12:4, which says he was seventy-five when he left Haran) and of leaving Chaldea because God bade him go to Canaan, with evident allusion to Genesis 12:1 (cf. Antiq. I, 154 [vii.1]). Likewise, Philo also placed the departure of Abraham from Haran after his father's death (De Migratione Abrahami 177). And undoubtedly the round figure of four hundred years for Israel's slavery in Egypt--a figure that stems from the statement credited to God in Genesis 15:13--was often used in popular expressions of religious piety in Late Judaism, as were also the transpositions of meaningful and usable phrases from one context to another.
</DIR></DIR>See how mental gymnastics are needed to attempt to resolve these problems? The writer at CTT basically says that Luke's account of the speech Stephen made before dying was either wrong or Stephen himself, while being filled with the Holy Spirit and being able to look into Heaven, mispoke. He then tries to explain that the error is not a big deal because the Jews of the day often wrote erroneously like this.
Are you freakin' kidding me!!!?!
 
Matthew 2


According to history, Herod (Hebrew: Â0ù6Â0ù7Â0ö9Â0û6Â0ö0Â0ù5Â0ù7Â0ö9Â0ú9Â6Â¥0, Hordos, Greek: Â6Ž1¦ÑÂ6¢4¦Ä¦ÇÂ0Ë9, H¨¥r¨*id¨¥s), also known as Herod the Great (born 73 or 74 BCE, died 4 BCE in Jericho<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1]</SUP>), was a Roman client king of Judea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
http://www.bible-history.com/herod_the_great/HERODTimeline.htm
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Religion/OTA/OTA-Other/Herod.htm

According to Matthew Jesus was born sometime during or before 4 bce.

Luke 2:
<SUP>

According to history, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 6 ce. That's at least 9 years after when Matthew says Jesus was born. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
"Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (Greek ¦ª¦Ô¦ÑÂ0Ë6¦Ã¦É¦ÃÂ0Ë9 - Kyrenios or Cyrenius, c. 51 BC - AD 21) was a Roman aristocrat. After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus from the tetrarchy of Judea in AD 6, Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria, to which the province of Iudaea had been added for the purpose of a census.<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1]"</SUP>


The 2 accounts are contradictory and therefore either 1 is wrong and the other is right, or both are wrong. Regardless, the 2 are not reconsilable which means that at least one is NOT God inspired..........

</SUP>
TRUTH over TRADITION, I see three things here: chronology by Mathew, Chronology written by Luke and that done by other non-biblical historians whose accounts were not recorded in the scripture.
++
Thanks for posting. However I want you to particularly clarify one thing: any idea who the historians were? All those dudes (non-biblical historians - and most are anonymous)whose accounts we read today seem to have completely different things put down.
--
--
For Luke and Mathew I need to know exactly where the contradictions are.
 
One must accept some things by faith. If the Bible says it, it's truth.

I'm not a history buff but find enough material to substantiate any countering to what a skeptic might suggest. For instance:
it is assumed that Josephus has adopted a scheme of reckoning parts of one year (only the first few days of a year) as answering in a legal sense to a whole year. If two or three days can be accepted as representing a whole year in Josephus’ account of the number of years for Herod’s reign, then these few days could allow Herod’s last year to be extended back to the first of Nisan on the Jewish calendar (March 29) in 4 B.C.E. and then a whole year can be awarded to him in a de jure sense.

With this type of reasoning, modern scholars suggest that Herod would have died two or three days after 1 Nisan (the start of the Jewish ecclesiastical year), but for legal reasons in reckoning Herod’s reign, the whole year from 1 Nisan, 4 B.C.E. to 1 Nisan, 3 B.C.E. is considered by them as the last regnal year of Herod.
 


Luke 2:
<SUP>[/SIZE][/FONT]

According to history, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 6 ce. That's at least 9 years after when Matthew says Jesus was born. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
"Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (Greek Κυρήνιος - Kyrenios or Cyrenius, c. 51 BC - AD 21) was a Romanaristocrat. After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus from the tetrarchy of Judea in AD 6, Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria, to which the province of Iudaea had been added for the purpose of a census.<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1]"</SUP>


The 2 accounts are contradictory and therefore either 1 is wrong and the other is right, or both are wrong. Regardless, the 2 are not reconsilable which means that at least one is NOT God inspired..........
So, are you questioning the timing of Herod's rein? I have discussed this topic and find this explainable, or at least to the skeptic, not a closed case.

I would just say it seems unlikely that Luke – the physician – would make such a blatant error. He was extremely detailed and is of particular note for this attribute. Given the plausible explanations (this author acknowledges the historical question) and the overall historicity that he presents in detail, I believe the error that you seem to be convinced of is not enough to doubt the authenticity of scripture.
---
Luke dates Jesus' birth to the time when Caesar Augustus had decreed that the whole world be registered (apographesthai), which (Publius Sulpicius) Quirinius carried out when he "was governor of Syria" (hêgemoneuontos tês Surias) (Luke 2:1-2; see Luke 3:1). Based on Luke 1:5, by implication, Herod the Great was still alive. The historical problem is that there is no other evidence apart from Luke's statement of such a census; in fact, it is difficult to integrate what Luke says about Quirinius with what is known about his career from other sources. Josephus records that in 6 Quirinius was sent by Caesar Augustus to serve as the legatus of Syria (Josephus' term dikaiodotês is the Greek equivalent of the Latin legatus); part of his task was to undertake an assessment (timêtês) of the property of the population of Judea after the deposition of Archaleus, the son of Herod the Great. (Coponius was also sent to function to rule over Judea, functioning a procurator or praefectus under the authority of Quirnius.) (Ant. 17.355; 18.1-2). That this assessment extended beyond Judea is proven by an inscription in which Aemilius Secundus records that he took a census in Apamea (in Syria) on the orders of Quirninius (CIL III 6687). It was this assessment of property for the purpose of taxation that led Judas the Galilean to lead a popular rebellion against Rome (Ant. 18.1-2; Acts 5:37). It has been suggested that Luke wrongly retrojected this assessement of property in 6/7 into the time when Herod the Great was still alive and the time of Jesus' birth. (Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.) This was the reason that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem. This conclusion, however, is not necessary. In fact, prima facie, it seems unlikely that Luke would make such a chronological blunder.

Two viable explanations for this apparent chronological difficulty have been offered. First, it is possible that Luke's statement in that Luke 2:2 should be translated as "This registration occurred before Quirinius was in charge of Syria." The word prôtê ("first") can sometime be used in the sense of protera, the comparative of prôtê, meaning "former" or "prior" (see Acts 1:1; John 1:15, 30; 15:18). In this case, the phrase hêgemoneuontos tês Surias ("Quirinius was in charge") would be a genitive of comparison. If this is what he intended, all that Luke is saying is that a registration was conducted by the decree of Augustus before the better known assessment of property undertaken by Quirinius in 6/7. Grammatically, this is possible, but not probable, since it is most natural to take the participle as a genitive absolute: "when Quirinius was in charge of Syria."

Second, attempts have been made to find a previous appointment of Quirinius as legatus that would enable him to oversee the registration mentioned in Luke 2:2. Quirinius was consul in 12 BCE and led military campaign against the Homanadenses of Asia Minor near Galatia (Tacitus, Ann. 3.48). The partially preserved inscription known as the lapis tiburtinus refers to a certain legatus (the name has not been preserved): "pro-praetorial legatus of Divus Augustus, he received again Syria and Phoenicia" ([legatus pro praetore] divi Augusti iterum Syriam et Pho[enicen optinuit]) (CIL XIV, 3613). Ramsay argues that this inscription probably refers to Quirinius, which may mean that Quirinius was twice legatus of Syria (Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?). (This assumes that the Latin word iterum ["again"] modifies the verb optinuit "received," which is a possible interpretation.) It is Ramsey's hypothesis that Quirinius received a imperium maius (greater jurisdiction) during the time of the Homanadensian campaign, so that at the time he exercised power along with the actual legatus of Syria, S. Sentius Saturninus (9-6 BCE). It was during this time that, as legatus, Quirinius received orders to undertake the registration. This possibility finds support in the strange reference in Tertullian that Jesus' birth took place under the legate Saturninus (Adv. Marc. 4.19.10). At the time of the birth of Jesus, both Quirinius and Saturninus were legati of Syria. Although it would have been unusual, the Romans undertook a registration of the population while Herod the Great was still king as opposed to after his death. This registration is otherwise unknown: Luke alone, among ancient authors, testifies to this official event. (Based on papyrus evidence alone, it has been determined that the Romans took a registration of the province of Egypt every fourteen years [OxyP 2.254, 255, 256].)


http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/Li ... hJesus.htm
 
Back
Top