Are There Errors in the Bible?

Askjo,

Compare 2 Ki 8:26 and 2 Chron 22:2 in the KJB. What do they say?

 

One's view of inerrancy directly relates to one's view of God.

Is Scripture is fallible, so is God.

 

This is too weird! I just finished with a site I've never been to before & it addresses those very verses.

www.letgodbetrue.com/BibleTopics/scripture/Ahaziah_Contradiction.pdf

 

Only the KJV goofs with Ahaziah's age.

 

I think a better explaination is that "scarlet" in Matthew and "purple" in John and Mark refer to the color of the same robe, only Matthew is more precise in his wording. The greek word for purple can evidently stand for a range of colors, including the scarlet of the robes readily available to the Roman soldiers (so Gundry and Hiebert). The word "purple" could be used (legitimately and without introducing an error) to emphasize the meaning of the symbol that the robe mockingly represented.

Andy

 

2 Kings 8:26 -- 22 years old -- he began to reign.

2 Chron. 22:2 -- 42 years old. The Hebrews literally reads, "a son of 42 years." It is possible that the 42 refers to his mother, Athaliah's age.

2 Chron. 21:20 -- 32 years old -- he reigned in Jerusalem in 8 years. His father died at 40 age.

He was 22 years old.
His mother was 42 years old.
His father was 40 years old.

 

Who gets to decide what "the message" is? The message is what the text says. If there is an error, it is an error of message.

Or else they will be able to give direct answers to the alleged problems. You give way too much credit to unbelievers. We need to teach kids the doctrines of the word of God so that they can give a reason for the hope that lies within them. Religion classes need believers to stand up in them and defend the historic doctrines of God's word.

You talk about pondering deep questions and suggest that the answer to these deep questions is "The Bible has errors." I think your "pondernig" should start with the truthfulness of God and ponder the "contradictions" from that angle. Why does "pondering deep questions" automatically result in "the Bible has errors"?

BTW, I don't konw what the Josh McDowell approach is. If you mean by that that we should strive to show how contradictions are only alleged, I suggest that goes back way farther than Josh McDowell.

 

From my personal experience, I know that once inerrancy goes (in any form) then everything is at risk. Though now an inerrantist, I once did not believe that the Bible was error free. I believed that errors were only on historical matters, not spiritual ones. Once that sank in, I began to question some of the theology and the validity of some biblical views on "faith and practice." By the grace of God I stayed true to my faith in Christ, but I got to the point where I questioned nearly everything other than the incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection.

Luckily I'm now an inerrantist, and I'm no longer on that slippery slope.

I'm not saying that everyone will go that far, but I know that some will go much further. For examples, all you have to do is look at some of the more liberal mainstream denominations.

I for one do not want to run the risk of having my pastor share beliefs with John Shelby Spong!

 

It's both a faith and a proof thing. I haven't seen answers for every possible objection to inerrancy, but I've seen enough of them for me to believe that if we have all the information we will find that the original manuscripts were inerrant.

 

There are NO errors in the Bible, in the factual content, the grammar and syntax down to the jots and tittles.

All "errors" in the Bible are introduced by man.

There are errors of understanding and interpretation and they abound.

There are manuscript errors which are the result of the human transmission of the text (printer errors, copyist additions, deletions and substitutions of the text).

There are errors (or poor choices) in the translation of the original language manuscripts.

There is the head-in-sand error of Latin Vulgate and/or King James ONLY theory.

HankD

 

Larry,

What I would call the "Josh McDowell approach" is exactly what Jason was doing with the scarlet and purple robe, or Askjo with the KJV recording of the ages of Ahaziah - namely trying to find a "least common denominator" explanation in which both can be literally true, no matter how unlikely that explanation REALLY is.

Regarding the "errors" - well....

There ARE places where the bible says different things! Again, I don't have a problem with it and I think these are understandable given that God chose to transmit His message through fallible humans. I don't believe that THESE THINGS cause the bible to be "in error".

If, however, we simply teach everyone to harmonize it all there will be some who are left asking if all of our beliefs are founded on this type of tenuous conclusion!!

Now I'm not advocating teaching advanced theology in VBS! But I am saying that we must be prepared to deal with the tough questions when they come. You need to realize (as you probably do) that not everyone's mind is the same; some people just are inquisitive by their natures.

Take the ages of the patriarchs for example. I've heard the explanation of the earth losing its "water canopy" and thus UV radiation caused our lifespan to be limited to 120 years. If this explanation works for someone then fine! Let him/her be at ease! But there will be some who say, "well that doesn't make good sense; our bodies DNA repair and apoptotic genes aren't able to deal with 800 years, especially with questionable nutrition and no medical care..."

Now God could have simply changed how long the body lasts - or the OT writers could have been using some of the middle eastern tendencies to be loose and sometimes exaggerative with age.

What I'm saying is that the bible IS what it IS. God didn't see fit to give us the bible in stone tablets from his own finger - as such we have to deal with its human component. And there will be some students who see through the "harmonized" answers and recognize that they are attempts to make something fit, even if it doesn't seem to. We must be prepared to discuss with them some of the more difficult questions - and admit that we don't have all the answers.

I remember an ex brother-in-law (who was extraordinarily bright and naturally inquisitive) who attended a certain baptist university in Lynchburg and got a 4.0 and was valedictorian of his class. Later he lost his faith and ceased to believe, citing that one day he simply realized that he couldn't "believe the stuff anymore" He said that he realized that the foundations of our Christianity are intellectually dishonest.

Of course his "apostasy" is his own fault. But I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened if someone had actually discussed things with him when he had questions instead of telling him,"don't dwell on that, the devil will get to you!"

Like I said, I don't have a problem with the small inconsistencies in the bible - they are the product of its human transmission. They do not alter God's message to us.

 

Jason,

What I'm basically saying is that we shouldn't always look for the least common denominator explanation that allows us to keep a literal interpretation of both passages. I think we should seek, through biblical comparison, language, extrabiblical study, and science/archeology the most likely true answer - even if it contradicts something we had taken for granted previously.

Is there any here who doubts God or who says "Christ be not raised?" I don't think so! So I'm not afraid of what science or research might show us.

Now for some people a simple explanation is enough. But some people who are inquisitive by nature will invariably question some of these explanations and see certain things don't line up. If we then tell them that they're not trusting God by asking so many questions then they will perhaps think that our faith is a farce!

 

Everybody admits there are errors in transmission of the Greek and Hebrew text.

Everybody admits there are errors in interpretation at times and no human is free from all error in interpreting.

THEREFORE nobody at this time and place can precisely specify what the inerrant Word of God was and what it meant - beyond all possible error.

 

Thank you for that Jason.

HankD

 

I don't think the inconsistencies we see are from the original transmission but from copyist or translation errors, and it is not that hard to figure out what the error is. I do believe the original autographs to be without error.

All the apparent contradictions and errors have been pretty much explained by many people. One book that does this is Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties . Another one is Norman Geisler's and Thomas Howe's When Critics Ask .

The latter book states that King Joram, King Ahaziah's father, died at age 40, 8 yrs. after taking the throne at age 32 (2 Kings 8:17). Therefore, Ahaziah could not be 42 (older than his father) when he took the throne. He was 22. The age of 42 is a copyist error. From what I understand about Hebrew, sometimes the difference in how numbers are written is a miniscule mark that is teensy-tiny and easily missed. Things like this are reasonable explanations.

I do not believe any scientific fact will ever show error in the Bible. And so far, archeology has only proved the existence of places and peoples named in the Bible that once were throught to be non-existent.

This site also addresses apparent contradictions:
http://www.nonak.com/contractions_of_bible.htm