Error and Contradictions in the Bible

Foreigner said:

-- I know.
But you yourself stated it is 'mans interpretation' of God's word.
That is the problem.

Click to expand...

Not for God

aspen said:

Not for God

Click to expand...

-- But it is for man.
And since the whole purpose for the Bible was to ensure that man could better understand, commune, and love God and find salvation, misinterpretation that can can interfere or steer someone in the wrong direction can cost someone their salvation.

So, while it is nice that God knows what he is trying to say, if man doesn't understand it....

Foreigner said:

-- But it is for man.
And since the whole purpose for the Bible was to ensure that man could better understand, commune, and love God and find salvation, your post is valueless.

Click to expand...

I do not think that type of intimacy with God is the purpose of the Bible - instead, it is the purpose of prayer. The OT is a record of humanities' bumbling attempts to respond to a Sovereign God; the NT is God's perfect response to His sovereignty, If the main purpose of the Bible was to convey information about God, beyond His Sovereignty and Love, He would not have used humans to convey the information.

aspen said:

I do not think that type of intimacy with God is the purpose of the Bible - instead, it is the purpose of prayer. The OT is a record of humanities' bumbling attempts to respond to a Sovereign God; the NT is God's perfect response to His sovereignty, If the main purpose of the Bible was to convey information about God, beyond His Sovereignty and Love, He would not have used humans to convey the information.

Click to expand...

-- If that is what you think the extent of the Bible's necessity is, I fear you are sadly mistaken.
It is so very much more than what you say.
The Bible is one of the greatest tools to help ensure intimacy with God.
It is proof that perfection isn't necessary to be loved by God and used in a great way.
It teaches why God is worthy of praise, the importance of praise, and how to praise.
It give clear right-and-wrong guidelines for your life.
It teaches you the power of prayer, why prayer is vital and HOW to pray.
It is one of the options through which God directs you as well as gives answers to your prayers.
It provides you the method by which the Holy Spirit directs you and equips you to witness to the lost.
The Bible has brought several people to know God who have never in their lives prayed before.

You put it on the same level of a tract handed to you at an airport.

Foreigner said:

-- If that is what you think the extent of the Bible's necessity is, I fear you are sadly mistaken.
It is so very much more than what you say.
The Bible is one of the greatest tools to help ensure intimacy with God.
It is proof that perfection isn't necessary to be loved by God and used in a great way.
It teaches why God is worthy of praise, the importance of praise, and how to praise.
It give clear right-and-wrong guidelines for your life.
It teaches you the power of prayer, why prayer is vital and HOW to pray.
It is one of the options through which God directs you as well as gives answers to your prayers.
It provides you the method by which the Holy Spirit directs you and equips you to witness to the lost.
The Bible has brought several people to know God who have never in their lives prayed before.


You put it on the same level of a tract handed to you at an airport.

Click to expand...

I don't know........ airport tracts are pretty great - have you seen all the stuff you can get from them?

I do not disagree with your list in general, but I think there is a danger - it is easy to embrace the Bible so tightly that it becomes a security blanket, an idol, and leads us to believe that our relationship with God is all based in the mind, rather than in the mind, heart, will.

But generally, all the information in your list falls under love for me. I tend to think globally.

You mentioned the Bible providing us a moral code - a guide to teach us right from wrong - I agree, but I think that love, itself, is the manner in which we must behave rightly. Loving selfishly is sin. Loving God and neighbor is behaving as we were created to behave,

As far as belittling the Bible - I believe the Bible is my authority.

This is not to say there is a contradiction, simply an observation.
The synoptic gospels have our Lord crucified at a different time than John does.
John's account is on the day of passover, whereas the others are a week later.
Also look at the placement of the women during the crucification, particularly Mary Magdalene.

John is using Roman time, the others are using Hebrew time.

Bible Contradictions Answered #76

1 Kings 14:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses..."

2 Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses..."

Mark 8:12 - "Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation"

Luke 11:29 - "This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet."

IAmAWitness said:

1 Kings 14:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses..."

2 Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses..."

Click to expand...

There is no mention of horses in the entire chapter of 1 Kings 14.

rstrats said:

Mark 8:12 - "Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation"

Luke 11:29 - "This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet."

Click to expand...

The latter verse having more detail does not mean it is a contradiction. The context of belief, that Jesus will be raised up after 3 days, remains intact in Mark 8:31. The "sign of Jonah" foreshadows Jesus in the tomb for 3 days.

kepha31 said:

There is no mention of horses in the entire chapter of 1 Kings 14.

Click to expand...

1 King 4:26,,, there was an error in carrying over the verse.

EDIT: Gill's Exposition "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls for horses,.... In 2 Chronicles 9:25; it is only four thousand; and therefore some think that here is a mistake of the copier, of "arbaim", forty, for "arbah", four; which it is thought might be through divine permission, in such lesser matters, without any prejudice to the authority of the Scriptures in matters of faith and practice..."

IAmAWitness said:

1 King 4:26,,, there was an error in carrying over the verse.

EDIT: Gill's Exposition "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls for horses,.... In 2 Chronicles 9:25; it is only four thousand; and therefore some think that here is a mistake of the copier, of "arbaim", forty, for "arbah", four; which it is thought might be through divine permission, in such lesser matters, without any prejudice to the authority of the Scriptures in matters of faith and practice..."

Click to expand...

Here's an interesting "explanation" for that...

The two passages describe different types of stalls

1 Kings 4:26 says:
“Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

2 Chronicles 9:25 says:
“Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

The two verses do not contradict because they describe different types of stalls. The stalls in 1 Kings 4:26 were "of horses" which were used for chariots and by horsemen. Nothing in this verse says that these stalls were for the chariots. On the other hand, the stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25 were for "horses and chariots". Such a stall to house both horses and chariots would not have been as numerous as stalls to house just horses because there is always a smaller ratio of chariots to horses. In fact, 2 Chronicles 1:14 says there were 1,400 chariots. Hence it makes sense that there would be less of these stalls that were capable of storing both horses and chariots.

Whereas 2 Chronicles 9:25 describes the purpose of the stalls (i.e. "stalls for...."), 1 Kings 4:26 describes the purpose of the horses (i.e. "horses for...."). In saying that the purpose of the horses was for Solomon's "chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" (interpreting the "twelve thousand horsemen" as part of the conjunctive list belonging with "chariots"), 1 Kings 4:26 effectively links the horses to items of which we know the numbers. If these horses were for 1,400 chariots (2 Chronicles 1:14) and 12,000 horsemen, the number of horses would have been considerably large. Even with the conservative assumption of 2 horses per chariot and 1 horse per horseman, the number of horses needed for 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen is 14,800 horses. If there were one horse on reserve (a spare) per every horse on duty, that would already be 29,600 horses. Hence, 40,000 stalls would have been a reasonable number to accommodate this many horses.

In conclusion, there were 40,000 stalls that were for housing horses, and 4,000 stalls that were for storing horses and chariots. The two numbers could be harmonized if each of the 4,000 stalls with the space to house a chariot had 10 subdividing stalls for individual horses.

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/40000-or-4000-in-1-kings-426

THE Gypsy said:

Here's an interesting "explanation" for that...

The two passages describe different types of stalls

1 Kings 4:26 says:
“Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

2 Chronicles 9:25 says:
“Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

The two verses do not contradict because they describe different types of stalls. The stalls in 1 Kings 4:26 were "of horses" which were used for chariots and by horsemen. Nothing in this verse says that these stalls were for the chariots. On the other hand, the stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25 were for "horses and chariots". Such a stall to house both horses and chariots would not have been as numerous as stalls to house just horses because there is always a smaller ratio of chariots to horses. In fact, 2 Chronicles 1:14 says there were 1,400 chariots. Hence it makes sense that there would be less of these stalls that were capable of storing both horses and chariots.

Whereas 2 Chronicles 9:25 describes the purpose of the stalls (i.e. "stalls for...."), 1 Kings 4:26 describes the purpose of the horses (i.e. "horses for...."). In saying that the purpose of the horses was for Solomon's "chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" (interpreting the "twelve thousand horsemen" as part of the conjunctive list belonging with "chariots"), 1 Kings 4:26 effectively links the horses to items of which we know the numbers. If these horses were for 1,400 chariots (2 Chronicles 1:14) and 12,000 horsemen, the number of horses would have been considerably large. Even with the conservative assumption of 2 horses per chariot and 1 horse per horseman, the number of horses needed for 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen is 14,800 horses. If there were one horse on reserve (a spare) per every horse on duty, that would already be 29,600 horses. Hence, 40,000 stalls would have been a reasonable number to accommodate this many horses.

In conclusion, there were 40,000 stalls that were for housing horses, and 4,000 stalls that were for storing horses and chariots. The two numbers could be harmonized if each of the 4,000 stalls with the space to house a chariot had 10 subdividing stalls for individual horses.

http://www.kjvtoday....-in-1-kings-426

Click to expand...

I can't discount the notion but I don't agree with this explanation in that the 40,000 is still far too large to be a reasonable accommodation for what's being accommodated. I don't see this as being a viable explanation.

I think what may have been the case is that God let the 0 slip in because what it actually does is give a Bible code that answers a sign for the end times.

Therefore, what is apparently a contradiction is not a contradiction at all because the Bible code centered around these chapters are actually true.

kepha31,

re: "The latter verse having more detail does not mean it is a contradiction."
　
So using that reasoning, when Luke 18:33 says that He will rise ON the third day, and Mark 8:31 says that the Messiah will rise AFTER three days, Mark is simply supplying more detail by including the word "AFTER" which for some reason Luke forgot to include?

rstrats said:

kepha31,

re: "The latter verse having more detail does not mean it is a contradiction."
　
So using that reasoning, when Luke 18:33 says that He will rise ON the third day, and Mark 8:31 says that the Messiah will rise AFTER three days, Mark is simply supplying more detail by including the word "AFTER" which for some reason Luke forgot to include?

Click to expand...

Do you think Mark means Jesus rose on the fourth day?

kepha31,

re: "Do you think Mark means Jesus rose on the fourth day?"

I don’t see why not.

Assuming a Thursday crucifixion, that day could be the 1[sup]st[/sup] day, Friday could be the 2[sup]nd[/sup] day, Saturday could be the 3[sup]rd[/sup] day and Sunday could be the 4[sup]th[/sup] day.

I just simply want to comment about the thread title.
There is no darkness or contradiction in Gods word.
I decided and began to discover may years ago such talk is the result of not understanding.
I've had to threw my life, go back and reevaluate what I was taught and what I thought I believed.
Humbling ones self is a wise choice, it sprouts the fruit of wisdom.

IAmAWitness said:

1 Kings 14:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses..."

2 Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses..."

Click to expand...

This is NOT a 'contradiction', it is a formulation error.

rstrats said:

Mark 8:12 - "Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation"

Luke 11:29 - "This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet."

Click to expand...

These two verses do NOT represent the same time in scripture.

Stan,

re: "These two verses do NOT represent the same time in scripture."


What difference does that make?

rstrats said:

Stan,

re: "These two verses do NOT represent the same time in scripture."


What difference does that make?

Click to expand...

Really.... I have to explain that to you? Maybe you can explain how you see it AS a contradiction?