Can the Holy Spirity be wrong?

[edwin]

According to Acts 7:55, Stephen was supposedly "full of the Holy Ghost."

Look for instance at the book of Acts chapter 7. Here Stephen is arrested and led before the high court, accused of blasphemy. He speaks there about G.d calling Abraham. Acts 7:4 says: "He dwelt in Charran, and from there, when his father was dead, He removed him into this land wherein you now dwell." Here it clearly says that Abraham left Charran after the death of his father. Who was his father? See Genesis 11:26: "And Terah lived 70 years and he begot Abram, Nahor and Haran."....--So Abraham's father was Terah, who was 70 years when he begot Abraham.-Genesis 12:4: "And Abraham was 75 years old when he departed from Haran." At this time, when Abraham departed from Haran, his father was 70+75=145 years old. And how long did his father live? Genesis 11:32: "And the days of Terah were 205 years and Terah died in Haran.".. .......When Abraham left Haran his father was 145 years old. His father lived to be 205 years old. That means that after Abraham left Haran, his father lived another 60 years. (205-145)

So how can Stephen say that Abraham left Haran after the death of his father?​

 

[Sissy]

There has been lots of debate over this passage.

Genesis 11
(26) And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
​

It doesn't really say that Terah was 70 when he begot Abram.
It actually says that Terah was 70 before he began to beget any of his children.
We do not know which one was born first.



The same sort of problem exist with the children of Noah.

Genesis 5
(32) And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
​

We know from other scriptures that all three were not born when Noah was 500.

So, again, all it is saying is that Noah was 500 before he began to beget any children.

 

[Bazz1040]

According to Acts 7:55, Stephen was supposedly "full of the Holy Ghost."

Look for instance at the book of Acts chapter 7. Here Stephen is arrested and led before the high court, accused of blasphemy. He speaks there about G.d calling Abraham. Acts 7:4 says: "He dwelt in Charran, and from there, when his father was dead, He removed him into this land wherein you now dwell." Here it clearly says that Abraham left Charran after the death of his father. Who was his father? See Genesis 11:26: "And Terah lived 70 years and he begot Abram, Nahor and Haran."....--So Abraham's father was Terah, who was 70 years when he begot Abraham.-Genesis 12:4: "And Abraham was 75 years old when he departed from Haran." At this time, when Abraham departed from Haran, his father was 70+75=145 years old. And how long did his father live? Genesis 11:32: "And the days of Terah were 205 years and Terah died in Haran.".. .......When Abraham left Haran his father was 145 years old. His father lived to be 205 years old. That means that after Abraham left Haran, his father lived another 60 years. (205-145)

So how can Stephen say that Abraham left Haran after the death of his father?​

The right question and attitude to be in is to ask is, is my understanding of scripture correct?

 

[Theofilus]

I agree with Sissy. I doubt that they were triplets. But even if you could show that the were all born when their father was 70, that wouldn't prove that the Holy Pirit was wrong, just that Stephen was wrong. Just because someone's filled with the Holy Spirit, that doesn't mean that they're infallible.

 

[cyberjosh]

I agree with Sissy. I doubt that they were triplets. But even if you could show that the were all born when their father was 70, that wouldn't prove that the Holy Pirit was wrong, just that Stephen was wrong. Just because someone's filled with the Holy Spirit, that doesn't mean that they're infallible.

That sort of thinking causes lots of theological problems though. I know that just because you and I are filled with the Holy Spirit that does not make our words infallible, but if applied unilaterally to even things in Scripture then bigger questions arise. How then do we know the OT prophets were not wrong in some areas then?

"As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating." (1 Peter 1:10-11)

"For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:21)

I see no reason to doubt Stephen's words, even if difficult to understand. I believe he was speaking as the Spirit drove him. How else would he have been able to give such a marvelous testimony as long, eloquent, and as powerful as that on the spot (which actually also fulfilled Jesus' promise that in the hour of need they would know everything they need to say and do "not [need] to meditate before what [they] shall answer" - Luke 21:14)? And why else would the Spirit have come upon him? It wouldn't be the first time that something new/additional about the OT was mentioned for the first time in the NT either. Sissy's point is a good reconcilliation. I'm just saying...

In Christ,

~Josh

 

[Adstar]

According to Acts 7:55, Stephen was supposedly "full of the Holy Ghost."

Look for instance at the book of Acts chapter 7. Here Stephen is arrested and led before the high court, accused of blasphemy. He speaks there about G.d calling Abraham. Acts 7:4 says: "He dwelt in Charran, and from there, when his father was dead, He removed him into this land wherein you now dwell." Here it clearly says that Abraham left Charran after the death of his father. Who was his father? See Genesis 11:26: "And Terah lived 70 years and he begot Abram, Nahor and Haran."....--So Abraham's father was Terah, who was 70 years when he begot Abraham.-Genesis 12:4: "And Abraham was 75 years old when he departed from Haran." At this time, when Abraham departed from Haran, his father was 70+75=145 years old. And how long did his father live? Genesis 11:32: "And the days of Terah were 205 years and Terah died in Haran.".. .......When Abraham left Haran his father was 145 years old. His father lived to be 205 years old. That means that after Abraham left Haran, his father lived another 60 years. (205-145)

So how can Stephen say that Abraham left Haran after the death of his father?​

The scripture is not stating that Abraham waited till his father died to move. It simply states that Abraham took His fathers dead body from charren. Stephen was not talking about when Abraham moved to his new home He was talking about when Abraham moved His father to his new home. It's all about how you read it.

So the logical explanation is Abraham went back to Charren on news of his fathers death and carried his remains to be reburied in his new home. Just as Moses took the bones of Joseph from Egypt during the exodus and they where reburied in Shechem.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[edwin]

There has been lots of debate over this passage.

Genesis 11
(26) And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
​

It doesn't really say that Terah was 70 when he begot Abram.
It actually says that Terah was 70 before he began to beget any of his children.
We do not know which one was born first.



The same sort of problem exist with the children of Noah.

Genesis 5
(32) And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
​

We know from other scriptures that all three were not born when Noah was 500.

So, again, all it is saying is that Noah was 500 before he began to beget any children.

If you read the passages in Gen 11 of Terach's ancestors, the pattern is quite clear: so and so lived x no. of years and begat so and so. Therefore the OT is telling us that Terach was at least 70 years old when Abram was born. Now Gen 11:32 tells us that Terach died in Charran at age 205 and Gen 12:4 clearly states that Abram was 75 when left Charran for Canaan. Therefore Terach was at least 145 years old when Abram left. He continued to live for many decades after Abram left for Canaan and there is no record in the OT that Abram went back to Charran and buried his father's remains in Canaan. When you think about it there would be no reason to do that. Abram made a clean break with his father who worshipped idols and for whom the Covenant never applied.

Now if the OT is the word of God there certainly does seem to be a discrepancy between what God is saying in the Hebrew bible and what Stephen is saying in the Greek Testament which is also supposed to be the word of God.

 

[Sissy]

If you read the passages in Gen 11 of Terach's ancestors, the pattern is quite clear: so and so lived x no. of years and begat so and so. Therefore the OT is telling us that Terach was at least 70 years old when Abram was born. Now Gen 11:32 tells us that Terach died in Charran at age 205 and Gen 12:4 clearly states that Abram was 75 when left Charran for Canaan. Therefore Terach was at least 145 years old when Abram left. He continued to live for many decades after Abram left for Canaan and there is no record in the OT that Abram went back to Charran and buried his father's remains in Canaan. When you think about it there would be no reason to do that. Abram made a clean break with his father who worshipped idols and for whom the Covenant never applied.

Now if the OT is the word of God there certainly does seem to be a discrepancy between what God is saying in the Hebrew bible and what Stephen is saying in the Greek Testament which is also supposed to be the word of God.

That' what I said.
All we know is that until Terah was at least 70, he was childless.
Terah was 70 when he BEGAN to have to sons.
He had 3 sons.
Scripture does not specifically tells us who was the older and who was the younger of his sons.

Listing Abram first does not mean he was born first.

Case in point is the children of Noah.

Genesis 5
(32) And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
​

At least with these 3 sons, we know from other scripture who was older and younger.

GEN 10:21 says Japheth was the elder.
GEN 9:24 says that Ham was the youngest.

So, again we see that who is listed first does not mean they were the firstborn.
And from other scripture we learn that Noah was 502 when he begat Shem.





Long story short, if you add Stephen's story in Acts and the Genesis story, Abram would have been born when Terah was 130, which would be either his 2nd son or even 3rd son.

So, there is no conflict unless you insist that Abram was the 1st born.
But to insist that Abram was the 1st born would be adding to scripture, because it never says Abram was the 1st born.


Does that help clear it up a bit?
If not, I could lay it out a little more detailed.
I tried to make this as short as possible.

 

[edwin]

That' what I said.
All we know is that until Terah was at least 70, he was childless.
Terah was 70 when he BEGAN to have to sons.
He had 3 sons.
Scripture does not specifically tells us who was the older and who was the younger of his sons.

Listing Abram first does not mean he was born first.

Case in point is the children of Noah.

Genesis 5
(32) And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
​

At least with these 3 sons, we know from other scripture who was older and younger.

GEN 10:21 says Japheth was the elder.
GEN 9:24 says that Ham was the youngest.

So, again we see that who is listed first does not mean they were the firstborn.
And from other scripture we learn that Noah was 502 when he begat Shem.





Long story short, if you add Stephen's story in Acts and the Genesis story, Abram would have been born when Terah was 130, which would be either his 2nd son or even 3rd son.

So, there is no conflict unless you insist that Abram was the 1st born.
But to insist that Abram was the 1st born would be adding to scripture, because it never says Abram was the 1st born.


Does that help clear it up a bit?
If not, I could lay it out a little more detailed.
I tried to make this as short as possible.

Let's give Stephen the benefit of any doubt. Let's assume Abram was the youngest and that he was born when Terach was 120. We know that Abram left Charran when he was 75- therefore in this hypothetical scenario Terach would be 195 years old. Even with this stretch it means Terach would live another 10 years AFTER Abram left. Additionally, there is no mention in the OT that Abram returned to Charran to bury his father's remains in Canaan. As I mentioned previously for Abram to do that makes no sense and IF it had occurred it would have been significant enough for it to have been recorded in the OT.

 

[Theofilus]

Let's give Stephen the benefit of any doubt. Let's assume Abram was the youngest and that he was born when Terach was 120.

If you read Sissy's post again, you'll see that she says Terah was 130 when Abraham was born. If that's correct, then there's no problem. Whey subtract 10 years from Terah's age, just to create a contradiction?

 

[edwin]

There are other significant errors in Stephen's speeches when compared with the OT.

.In verses 15 and 16 of Acts 7 Stephen says; "So Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid into the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem." -----...This verse contains multiple mistakes.
Jacob was not buried in Schem, he was buried in the cave of the field of Machpela at Mamre. Genesis 49:33; "And when Jacob had made an end to commanding his sons he gathered up his feet into the bed and yielded up the ghost and was gathered unto his people."
Genesis 50:13; "For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpela which Abraham bought with the field for a possession for a burying place of Ephron the Hittite before Mamre."
So we see that Abraham did not buy a tomb in Schem, but in Mamre, which is Hebron, (Genesis 23:19) and there was Jacob buried, and not in Schem.(Hebron is about 45 miles south of Sechem.) .....There was in fact a burial place in Schem, but it was bought not by Abraham, but by Jacob, and not Jacob, but Joseph was buried there. See Joshua 24:32: "And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground that Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a hundred pieces of silver."
.......About Stephen it is written (Acts 6:5), that he was full of the Holy Ghost, and that they were not able to resist the spirit and wisdom by which he spoke. (verse 10)
What kind of wisdom is this, making mistake after mistake after mistake, and contradicting the word of God as noted in the OT?

 

[Bazz1040]

There are other significant errors in Stephen's speeches when compared with the OT.

.In verses 15 and 16 of Acts 7 Stephen says; "So Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid into the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem." -----...This verse contains multiple mistakes.
Jacob was not buried in Schem, he was buried in the cave of the field of Machpela at Mamre. Genesis 49:33; "And when Jacob had made an end to commanding his sons he gathered up his feet into the bed and yielded up the ghost and was gathered unto his people."
Genesis 50:13; "For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpela which Abraham bought with the field for a possession for a burying place of Ephron the Hittite before Mamre."
So we see that Abraham did not buy a tomb in Schem, but in Mamre, which is Hebron, (Genesis 23:19) and there was Jacob buried, and not in Schem.(Hebron is about 45 miles south of Sechem.) .....There was in fact a burial place in Schem, but it was bought not by Abraham, but by Jacob, and not Jacob, but Joseph was buried there. See Joshua 24:32: "And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground that Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a hundred pieces of silver."
.......About Stephen it is written (Acts 6:5), that he was full of the Holy Ghost, and that they were not able to resist the spirit and wisdom by which he spoke. (verse 10)
What kind of wisdom is this, making mistake after mistake after mistake, and contradicting the word of God as noted in the OT?

I said in this topic many post ago that the question should be and attitude is, is my understanding correct? But no one seem to pay any attention to what I said. So I am going to address this so-called mistake on the part of Stephen to prove that before we go about finding fault of a particular scripture, we should take a good long look at ourselves and attitude towards God's word.

The truth of the matter is Jacob was buried in the cave of the field of Machpela at Mamre, but much later his bones were removed and taken and carried over into Sychem, and laid into the sepulcher that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.

The bones of Joseph was moved and reburied in Shechem

Joshua 24:32 (KJV)
32 And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for an hundred pieces of silver: and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.

Exodus 13:19 (KJV)
19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.

If we spend more time humbly studying God's word and no time criticizing certain parts of it, God in His grace and mercy will show you things what one is unable to see other wise.

 

[edwin]

I said in this topic many post ago that the question should be and attitude is, is my understanding correct? But no one seem to pay any attention to what I said. So I am going to address this so-called mistake on the part of Stephen to prove that before we go about finding fault of a particular scripture, we should take a good long look at ourselves and attitude towards God's word.

The truth of the matter is Jacob was buried in the cave of the field of Machpela at Mamre, but much later his bones were removed and taken and carried over into Sychem, and laid into the sepulcher that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.

The bones of Joseph was moved and reburied in Shechem

Joshua 24:32 (KJV)
32 And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for an hundred pieces of silver: and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.

Exodus 13:19 (KJV)
19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.

If we spend more time humbly studying God's word and no time criticizing certain parts of it, God in His grace and mercy will show you things what one is unable to see other wise.

Sorry, Baz but I think you have just proven my point. The OT which I am sure you will agree is the word of the Almighty specifically states that Jacob, not Abraham purchased a parcel of land from the sons of Hamor and Joseph was buried there. On the other hand Stephen says that Abraham bought this parcel of land and that Jacob was buried there. That is a straightforward contradiction of what is stated in the OT. Please back up your statement by showing us a passage in the OT that says that Jacob's bones were removed from the cave of Machpelah at Mamre and taken to Schehem.

 

[Sissy]

Sorry Edwin, but Bazz did indeed post something of relevance to your question.

I'm in the process of fixing supper, but when finished eating I will return and post.

 

[Bazz1040]

Sorry, Baz but I think you have just proven my point. The OT which I am sure you will agree is the word of the Almighty specifically states that Jacob, not Abraham purchased a parcel of land from the sons of Hamor and Joseph was buried there. On the other hand Stephen says that Abraham bought this parcel of land and that Jacob was buried there. That is a straightforward contradiction of what is stated in the OT. Please back up your statement by showing us a passage in the OT that says that Jacob's bones were removed from the cave of Machpelah at Mamre and taken to Schehem.

Sorry the error was on my part I was thinking about Jacob while trying to address the seemingly contradiction of what plot of land that Abraham bought and post the wrong scriptures. But the fault is not in Stephen either. I did a little research, so here it is below.



And were carried over to Sychem—"It is said, Genesis 50:13, that Jacob was buried in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre. And in Joshua 24:32, and Exodus 13:19, it is said that the bones of Joseph were carried out of Egypt by the Israelites, and buried in Shechem, which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem. As for the eleven brethren of Joseph, we are told by Josephus, Ant. lib. ii. cap. 8. sect. 2, that they were buried in Hebron, where their father had been buried. But, since the books of the Old Testament say nothing about this, the authority of Stephen (or of Luke here) for their being buried in Sychem is at least as good as that of Josephus for their being buried in Hebron."—Bp. Pearce.
We have the uniform consent of the Jewish writers that all the patriarchs were brought out of Egypt, and buried in Canaan, but none, except Stephen, mentions their being buried in Sychem. As Sychem belonged to the Samaritans, probably the Jews thought it too great an honor for that people to possess the bones of the patriarchs; and therefore have carefully avoided making any mention of it. This is Dr. Lightfoot's conjecture; and it is as probable as any other.

That Abraham bought for a sum of money—Two accounts seem here to be confounded:


1. The purchase made by Abraham of the cave and field of Ephron, which was in the field of Machpelah: this purchase was made from the children of Heth, Genesis 23:3, 10, 17.
2. The purchase made by Jacob, from the sons of Hamor or Emmor, of a sepulchre in which the bones of Joseph were laid: this was in Sychem or Shechem, Genesis 33:19; Joshua 24:32.


The word Abraham, therefore, in this place, is certainly a mistake; and the word Jacob, which some have supplied, is doubtless more proper. Bp. Pearce supposes that Luke originally wrote, ὁ ωνησατο τιμης αργυριου, which he bought for a sum of money: i.e. which Jacob bought, who is the last person, of the singular number, spoken of in the preceding verse. Those who saw that the word ωνησατο, bought, had no nominative case joined to it, and did not know where to find the proper one, seem to have inserted Αβρααμ, Abraham, in the text, for that purpose, without sufficiently attending to the different circumstances of his purchase from that of Jacob's.

— Adam Clarke's Commentary



So my point still stands in that God will guide the one that is willing to search things out and not try to blame those whom God has spoken through, or even God Himself. Like I said, in most cases the problem is usually the reader's understanding or even a minor error by some that gives us the English version of God's word.


I hope this helps to clear things up.

 

[Sissy]

Thanks, Bazz.

I will add this from scholar John William McGarvey in a commentary of Stephen's speech:

As the two clauses stand in our version, “he died, himself, and our fathers; and they were carried over into Shecham,†there can be no doubt that “himself †and “fathers†are common subjects of one verb “died,†and that the pronoun “they†before “were carried†refers to both alike.
But it is not so in the original. The construction is different. The verb rendered died is in the singular number, eteleutasen, and it agrees only with autos, himself. The plural substantive “fathers†is not the subject of that verb, but of the plural eteleutasan understood.
The construction having been changed with the introduction of the plural subject, it follows that the plural verb metetéthasan, “were carried,†belongs to fathers, and not to Jacob. The two clauses, properly punctuated, and with the ellipsis supplied, read thus: “and he died; and our fathers died, and were carried over into Shechem.†With this rendering and punctuation, which are certainly admissible, the contradiction totally disappears; and if the passage had been thus rendered at first into English, a contradiction would not have been thought of.

Jacob is mentioned apart from the “fathers†in that verse.
We know Jacob was buried in Hebron.
The “fathers†would be the 12 sons of Jacob (apart from Jacob himself).
We know from scripture that Joseph (one of the 12 sons of Jacob) was buried at Shechem.
If not for the words of Stephen, we would not know that the other son of Jacob were also buried in Shechem.





As for Stephen saying that Abraham bought the land in Shechem, Bazz gave a probable explanation from Barnes.
And we also have this from McGarvey:

Two statements are contradictory not when they differ, but when they cannot both be true.

John bought the house at 303 Elm Street.
Lucy bought the house at 303 Elm Street.

The statements differ, but both are true. They bought the same house at different times.

So, unless we have proof that Abraham never bought this land (and we don't have that proof), then both Abraham and Jacob could have bought the same land at different times. It is not unheard of that land bought is sometimes confiscated.
It is also not unheard of that land is sold and later redeemed by a kinsman (book of Ruth).

A stretch? Perhaps.
But as stated, it can only be a contradiction if one statement can be proven to be untrue.

 

[Bazz1040]

Thanks, Bazz.

I will add this from scholar John William McGarvey in a commentary of Stephen's speech:

Jacob is mentioned apart from the “fathers†in that verse.
We know Jacob was buried in Hebron.
The “fathers†would be the 12 sons of Jacob (apart from Jacob himself).
We know from scripture that Joseph (one of the 12 sons of Jacob) was buried at Shechem.
If not for the words of Stephen, we would not know that the other son of Jacob were also buried in Shechem.





As for Stephen saying that Abraham bought the land in Shechem, Bazz gave a probable explanation from Barnes.
And we also have this from McGarvey:

John bought the house at 303 Elm Street.
Lucy bought the house at 303 Elm Street.

The statements differ, but both are true. They bought the same house at different times.

So, unless we have proof that Abraham never bought this land (and we don't have that proof), then both Abraham and Jacob could have bought the same land at different times. It is not unheard of that land bought is sometimes confiscated.
It is also not unheard of that land is sold and later redeemed by a kinsman (book of Ruth).

A stretch? Perhaps.
But as stated, it can only be a contradiction if one statement can be proven to be untrue.

It just proves again that Stephen was not the one in error but how the Bible is translated into English. It is not always easy to translate from one language to another; we often forget that.

 

[Nathan]

Thanks, Bazz.

I will add this from scholar John William McGarvey in a commentary of Stephen's speech:

Jacob is mentioned apart from the “fathers†in that verse.
We know Jacob was buried in Hebron.
The “fathers†would be the 12 sons of Jacob (apart from Jacob himself).
We know from scripture that Joseph (one of the 12 sons of Jacob) was buried at Shechem.
If not for the words of Stephen, we would not know that the other son of Jacob were also buried in Shechem.





As for Stephen saying that Abraham bought the land in Shechem, Bazz gave a probable explanation from Barnes.
And we also have this from McGarvey:

John bought the house at 303 Elm Street.
Lucy bought the house at 303 Elm Street.

The statements differ, but both are true. They bought the same house at different times.

So, unless we have proof that Abraham never bought this land (and we don't have that proof), then both Abraham and Jacob could have bought the same land at different times. It is not unheard of that land bought is sometimes confiscated.
It is also not unheard of that land is sold and later redeemed by a kinsman (book of Ruth).

A stretch? Perhaps.
But as stated, it can only be a contradiction if one statement can be proven to be untrue.

Good stuff sissy :yes

 

[xAmbientxCatalystx]

Bazz, Sissy, Kudos to you both.

Why is it people look for contradictions in the bible much more quickly than they will look for a solution to clear up any questions?

Is not all scripture God breathed?

 

[Bazz1040]

Bazz, Sissy, Kudos to you both.

Why is it people look for contradictions in the bible much more quickly than they will look for a solution to clear up any questions?

Is not all scripture God breathed?

Because the natural mind is hostile to God and looks for reason to doubt or bring God into question. Satan also uses people to cast doubt in people's mind about the Bible. People who are quick to find fault in the Bible lacks humility which God loves to see in His people. Some can be so hostile that they cannot even admit that they are wrong, even when it is obvious to them.