"we Two Kings Of Orient Is, Totally Confused About When We Started The Biz"

[Pegasus_Voyager]

Here are two contradictions in the King James Version of the Bible that no theo-babble-gobble-de-gook can explain away: The classic Christian apologists explanation is that these are "copyist errors". In other words, God didn't screw up, fallible men did. Well, I can't prove that wrong, but it seems to me that if God "divinely inspired" the original writers of the Bible, how come he couldn't "inspire" the transcriptionists of his "holy" word to not have a "brain-fart" when copying such a profound document that would guide and govern all mankind. I also find it disingenuous of apologists not to acknowledge that these are, in fact, contradictions. contradiction is defined as: discrepancy: inconsistency. I'm waiting with baited breath for someone to explain how the following don't meet the criteria of that definition. I actually gleaned these from a thesis written by Dr Jason Long about two months ago. But I noticed they were in the list provided by the person posting "101 contradictions in the Old Testament"

 

 

CONTRADICTION #1 How old was King Jehoiachin when he began to reign, and for how long?

 

2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

 

as opposed to

 

2 Kings 24:8-9:

 

[8]Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

 

[9] And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

 

CONTRADICTION #2. How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

 

2 Kings 8:26 TWO and TWENTY years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

 

as opposed to:

 

2 Chronicles 22:2 FORTY and TWO years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

 

DISCUSSION: If 2 Chronicles 22:2 is meant to be accurate, Ahaziah was aparrently two years older than his father, Jehoram. 2 Chronicles 21:20 states that Jehoram was thirty two years old when he became king, and reigned for eight years, making him forty when he died. The math just doesn't add up, sportsfans!

 

www.permscape.blogspot.com

[pandora]

LOL The Bible is indeed one big brain fart!

[rad]

Here are two contradictions in the King James Version of the Bible that no theo-babble-gobble-de-gook can explain away: The classic Christian apologists explanation is that these are "copyist errors". In other words, God didn't screw up, fallible men did. Well, I can't prove that wrong, but it seems to me that if God "divinely inspired" the original writers of the Bible, how come he couldn't "inspire" the transcriptionists of his "holy" word to not have a "brain-fart" when copying such a profound document that would guide and govern all mankind. I also find it disingenuous of apologists not to acknowledge that these are, in fact, contradictions. contradiction is defined as: discrepancy: inconsistency. I'm waiting with baited breath for someone to explain how the following don't meet the criteria of that definition. I actually gleaned these from a thesis written by Dr Jason Long about two months ago. But I noticed they were in the list provided by the person posting "101 contradictions in the Old Testament"

 

 

CONTRADICTION #1 How old was King Jehoiachin when he began to reign, and for how long?

 

2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

 

as opposed to

 

2 Kings 24:8-9:

 

[8]Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

 

[9] And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

 

CONTRADICTION #2. How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

 

2 Kings 8:26 TWO and TWENTY years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

 

as opposed to:

 

2 Chronicles 22:2 FORTY and TWO years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

 

DISCUSSION: If 2 Chronicles 22:2 is meant to be accurate, Ahaziah was aparrently two years older than his father, Jehoram. 2 Chronicles 21:20 states that Jehoram was thirty two years old when he became king, and reigned for eight years, making him forty when he died. The math just doesn't add up, sportsfans!

 

www.permscape.blogspot.com

 

Matthews passion and post resurrection stories contradict, or add to the others in several places. And no, they weren't copyist errors. He should have gotten more confirmations of them.

 

 

Rad

[currentchristian]

Here are two contradictions in the King James Version of the Bible that no theo-babble-gobble-de-gook can explain away: The classic Christian apologists explanation is that these are "copyist errors."

 

That's what these mistakes you point out are: copyist errors. And they shouldn't bother anyone. Those who claim that the Bible is inerrant simply are mistaken, and I confess that I do wish they'd "get over it." Neither the Pope nor the Bible is infallible. (No offense to those who believe otherwise, just stating my view.)

 

You have demonstrated two errors in the Bible. There are more. But if one's faith is in the Word of God (Jesus) as opposed to the word of God (Bible), these issues matter little. Or so it seems to me.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Pegasus_Voyager]

 

That's what these mistakes you point out are: copyist errors. And they shouldn't bother anyone. Those who claim that the Bible is inerrant simply are mistaken, and I confess that I do wish they'd "get over it." Neither the Pope nor the Bible is infallible. (No offense to those who believe otherwise, just stating my view.)

 

You have demonstrated two errors in the Bible. There are more. But if one's faith is in the Word of God (Jesus) as opposed to the word of God (Bible), these issues matter little. Or so it seems to me.

 

MY RESPONSE: Since the Bible is supposed to document Christ's life and teachings, and that Bible has been conclusively proven to have error, how can I have faith in a historical figure who is described and discussed in a book that is saturated with error? Tell you what, read my thread 'J'Accuse God" in "testimonies of former Christians", then drop back this way and tell me why I should have faith in the "word" of God.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[spamandham]

...and here I thought you were going to talk about the 3 wise men in the birth story. I was looking forward to explaining that as a reference to the belt of Orion.

[Warrior_of_god]

Word of God (Jesus) as opposed to the word of God (Bible)

What the holy hell is the difference? A words meaning does not change with the capitalization of one letter...

 

I hope MA is not overrun with you people...I like this state too much.

[currentchristian]

Word of God (Jesus) as opposed to the word of God (Bible)

What the holy hell is the difference? A words meaning does not change with the capitalization of one letter...

 

I hope MA is not overrun with you people...I like this state too much.

 

Well, that was kind of mean of you?

 

What I hoped to express (perhaps I did so poorly), is that the Bible is not the Word of God as in the Logos of God. Jesus is. I think there is a difference.

 

Would you drive me out of the state because I see things in a way you don't? That sure would go against the wonderful liberal and libertarian spirit of the Bay State! Wouldn't it?

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Warrior_of_god]

Well, that was kind of mean of you?

Yes it was.

 

What I hoped to express (perhaps I did so poorly), is that the Bible is not the Word of God as in the Logos of God. Jesus is. I think there is a difference.

 

Yes, that was a poor expression, I still think that that theory is just as wrong as the bile being the word of god.

 

Would you drive me out of the state because I see things in a way you don't? That sure would go against the wonderful liberal and libertarian spirit of the Bay State! Wouldn't it?

No, I wouldnt.

[Dave]

You have demonstrated two errors in the Bible. There are more. But if one's faith is in the Word of God (Jesus) as opposed to the word of God (Bible), these issues matter little. Or so it seems to me.

Without the fallible bible you would know nothing about jesus. What is claimed about jesus is also fallible. Why bother? Your whole argument is irrelevant anyway. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything in the bible. You need to prove the god exists BEFORE you make any claims as to what it says or what is written about it. So far, all we have are excuses, and not one bit of proof of any kind of god.

 

 

That's what these mistakes you point out are: copyist errors. And they shouldn't bother anyone. Those who claim that the Bible is inerrant simply are mistaken, and I confess that I do wish they'd "get over it." Neither the Pope nor the Bible is infallible. (No offense to those who believe otherwise, just stating my view.)

 

You have demonstrated two errors in the Bible. There are more. But if one's faith is in the Word of God (Jesus) as opposed to the word of God (Bible), these issues matter little. Or so it seems to me.

-currentchristian in massachusetts

MY RESPONSE: Since the Bible is supposed to document Christ's life and teachings, and that Bible has been conclusively proven to have error, how can I have faith in a historical figure who is described and discussed in a book that is saturated with error? Tell you what, read my thread 'J'Accuse God" in "testimonies of former Christians", then drop back this way and tell me why I should have faith in the "word" of God.

I fixed it for you. If you put your reply at the end, AFTER the /quote, it won't get mixed up with what you are replying to. Just go to the very end and start typing and you'll be OK. What you had to say was good, and I didn't want it to get lost.

 

 

...and here I thought you were going to talk about the 3 wise men in the birth story. I was looking forward to explaining that as a reference to the belt of Orion.

Weren't the "3 wise men" Zoroastrian priests? That is according to the myth.

[currentchristian]

Without the fallible bible you would know nothing about jesus. What is claimed about jesus is also fallible. Why bother? Your whole argument is irrelevant anyway. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything in the bible. You need to prove the god exists BEFORE you make any claims as to what it says or what is written about it. So far, all we have are excuses, and not one bit of proof of any kind of god.

 

Throwing the Bible out the window is so easy to do. Drawing from the Bible -- by means of the application of literary criticism, archaeology, history, reason, intellect and Spirit -- the innumerable apples of gold in settings of silver is very difficult work. But I like this kind of work!

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[currentchristian]

Weren't the "3 wise men" Zoroastrian priests? That is according to the myth.

 

That questino made me go, "Hmmm? I wonder??"

 

As I'm sure you know, these "wise men of the East" are referred to only Matthew's account and there is no specific number given. It may have been 20 "wise men" for all we know. There were three gifts; thus some infer three men. But that's an inference. They did not show up the night of the birth as all nativity scenes present, but months later. It took these astrologers a while to travel! Anyway...

 

According to these two links, you may just be right, Dave:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi

 

http://www.amazon.com/Magi-Zoroaster-Three...n/dp/0941037886

 

-currentchristain in massachusetts

[Dave]

Without the fallible bible you would know nothing about jesus. What is claimed about jesus is also fallible. Why bother? Your whole argument is irrelevant anyway. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything in the bible. You need to prove the god exists BEFORE you make any claims as to what it says or what is written about it. So far, all we have are excuses, and not one bit of proof of any kind of god.

Throwing the Bible out the window is so easy to do. Drawing from the Bible -- by means of the application of literary criticism, archaeology, history,

The bible is a useless source of history and archeology.

reason, intellect and Spirit -- the innumerable apples of gold in settings of silver is very difficult work.

The apples are rotten. There is no reason or intellect in the bible. And I do not believe in ghosts so the "spirit" part is just make believe like the rest of it.

But I like this kind of work!

You can like worthless books all you want. I'll base my life on something that actually deals with reality.

[Warrior_of_god]

The apples are rotten. There is no reason or intellect in the bible. And I do not believe in ghosts so the "spirit" part is just make believe like the rest of it.

Sauce for the goose Mr. Savik.

[currentchristian]

The bible is a useless source of history and archeology.

reason, intellect and Spirit -- the innumerable apples of gold in settings of silver is very difficult work.

The apples are rotten. There is no reason or intellect in the bible. And I do not believe in ghosts so the "spirit" part is just make believe like the rest of it.

But I like this kind of work!

You can like worthless books all you want. I'll base my life on something that actually deals with reality.

 

Well, Dave, I must say that I think you overstate things just a tad. Surely there is one historical truth in the Bible, somewhere, and one nice juicy ripe apple worth picking! Surely??

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Dave]

The bible is a useless source of history and archeology.

reason, intellect and Spirit -- the innumerable apples of gold in settings of silver is very difficult work.

The apples are rotten. There is no reason or intellect in the bible. And I do not believe in ghosts so the "spirit" part is just make believe like the rest of it.

But I like this kind of work!

You can like worthless books all you want. I'll base my life on something that actually deals with reality.

Well, Dave, I must say that I think you overstate things just a tad.

Of course you would have to see it that way to protect your belief in the bible.

Surely there is one historical truth in the Bible, somewhere, and one nice juicy ripe apple worth picking! Surely??

What "historical truth"? Gee.... they got a few, very few, place names right and mentioned a few rulers/kings that any one at the time would have known. Let's take just a few of the main events in the bible; Genesis; none of that happened. No flood. All the battles mentioned in the OT. Never happened or happened in a different way hundreds to thousands of years after the alleged dates. The Exodus, never happened. The whole jesus thing. Never happened. Gee.... so much for the history part. Any apples found in that book can be found elsewhere and in a way that's more relevant to today's society.

[currentchristian]

Of course you would have to see it that way to protect your belief in the bible

 

I don't believe in the Bible; I believe in the one revealed in the Bible. There is a distinction to my way of thinking.

 

In terms of the historicity of the Bible, there is a mountain of evidence to establish much of the Bible. You are right, of course, that history can never establish as true the miraculous aspects of the life of Jesus, but no mainstream scholar would posit that Jesus did not exist.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Dave]

Of course you would have to see it that way to protect your belief in the bible

I don't believe in the Bible; I believe in the one revealed in the Bible. There is a distinction to my way of thinking.

A distinction that is so small, it's not relevant. Since I do not believe in the bible or the god it goes on about, it's all the same to me.

In terms of the historicity of the Bible, there is a mountain of evidence to establish much of the Bible.

There is not, in fact, it establishes the opposite. Most biblical history books are written by biblical apologists. The ones that dispute the historical aspects of the bible are never read by believers.

You are right, of course, that history can never establish as true the miraculous aspects of the life of Jesus, but no mainstream scholar would posit that Jesus did not exist.

Yet many do. No honest scholar would claim that the jesus mentioned in the bible ever existed since there is no reliable evidence to show he did. The only source for any information about jesus is the bible. All other info is highly suspect as outright forgeries, interpolations, or purposely mistaken identies.

[Fweethawt]

Of course you would have to see it that way to protect your belief in the bible

I don't believe in the Bible; I believe in the one revealed in the Bible. There is a distinction to my way of thinking.

I don't believe in farts, but I believe in the one that just revealed itself from my ass. There is distinkshun to my way of thinking.

[currentchristian]

In terms of the historicity of the Bible, there is a mountain of evidence to establish much of the Bible.

There is not, in fact, it establishes the opposite. Most biblical history books are written by biblical apologists. The ones that dispute the historical aspects of the bible are never read by believers.

You are right, of course, that history can never establish as true the miraculous aspects of the life of Jesus, but no mainstream scholar would posit that Jesus did not exist.

Yet many do. No honest scholar would claim that the jesus mentioned in the bible ever existed since there is no reliable evidence to show he did. The only source for any information about jesus is the bible. All other info is highly suspect as outright forgeries, interpolations, or purposely mistaken identies.

 

I know of no mainstream biblical scholar who posits that Jesus did not exist. The Jesus Seminar debates what the real Jesus may have said or not said (as opposed to the Christ of the Bible), but even they commence with the premise that there was a historical personage named Jesus who preached a new way to look at things.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Dave]

I know of no mainstream biblical scholar who posits that Jesus did not exist.

Then step outside of your world and you'll see that many SCHOLARS will admit there is absolutely no evidence to show the jesus of the bible ever existed. Now, if you question ONLY biblical scholars educated in bible colleges, then of course they'll all agree.

The Jesus Seminar debates what the real Jesus may have said or not said (as opposed to the Christ of the Bible), but even they commence with the premise that there was a historical personage named Jesus who preached a new way to look at things.

A false premise and one that needs to be debated BEFORE you make any claims as to what the guy said. What they are doing is no different than arguing over the size of the wings on unicorns.

[currentchristian]

I know of no mainstream biblical scholar who posits that Jesus did not exist.

Then step outside of your world and you'll see that many SCHOLARS will admit there is absolutely no evidence to show the jesus of the bible ever existed. Now, if you question ONLY biblical scholars educated in bible colleges, then of course they'll all agree.

The Jesus Seminar debates what the real Jesus may have said or not said (as opposed to the Christ of the Bible), but even they commence with the premise that there was a historical personage named Jesus who preached a new way to look at things.

A false premise and one that needs to be debated BEFORE you make any claims as to what the guy said. What they are doing is no different than arguing over the size of the wings on unicorns.

 

I do love, Dave, to step outside of my world. Please provide for me Web links to mainstream scholars of religion/history/Bible who claim that there was no such person. I stress mainstream because, of course, one can find someone or several someones who claim anything, absolutely anything: John Wilkes Booth survived the burning barn in 1865; Anasthasia survived the extermination of her royal family in 1918; the Holocaust didn't happen; the U.S. government flew planes into the WTC in order to justify a war in the Middle East; FDR knew of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor prior to December 7; President Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. You get the point. So I'm looking for mainstream scholars.

 

The scholars of the Jesus Seminar likely spent thousands of hours debating the question of the existence of a historical Jesus prior to forming the group. Why do you assume that they did not. Do you accept as true that some very, very smart, bright, intelligent, capable people believe in the historical existence of Jesus and that some equally smart, bright, intelligent, capable people actually believe in the Jesus of the gospels?

 

-CC in MA (the poster formerly known as currentchristian in massachusetts)

[Dave]

I do love, Dave, to step outside of my world. Please provide for me Web links to mainstream scholars of religion/history/Bible who claim that there was no such person.

Then I would be accused of some logical fallacy or personality flaw. I know that trap.

I stress mainstream because, of course, one can find someone or several someones who claim anything, absolutely anything...... You get the point. So I'm looking for mainstream scholars.

Ah, Yes, I get the point. Any source I provide would be considered "not main stream" because they don't agree with your a priori assumptions. If I seem jaded, or cynical, about this, it's because I've been having these same discussions, with the same replies, for about 30 years now. You might want to try anything by a friend of mine; A.J. Mattill, Jr.. He has a doctorate in biblical studies from a major college. He told me that he studied the bible so much and learned so much about it that he could not longer believe a word of it. You'll need to do your own research since anything I provide would be discounted.

The scholars of the Jesus Seminar likely spent thousands of hours debating the question of the existence of a historical Jesus prior to forming the group.....

Yes, and their bias is quite evident. Why do you assume they did any studying at all (except for market studies to see if they could make a profit)?

[currentchristian]

Then I would be accused of some logical fallacy or personality flaw. I know that trap.

I stress mainstream because, of course, one can find someone or several someones who claim anything, absolutely anything...... You get the point. So I'm looking for mainstream scholars.

Ah, Yes, I get the point. Any source I provide would be considered "not main stream" because they don't agree with your a priori assumptions. If I seem jaded, or cynical, about this, it's because I've been having these same discussions, with the same replies, for about 30 years now. You might want to try anything by a friend of mine; A.J. Mattill, Jr.. He has a doctorate in biblical studies from a major college. He told me that he studied the bible so much and learned so much about it that he could not longer believe a word of it. You'll need to do your own research since anything I provide would be discounted.

The scholars of the Jesus Seminar likely spent thousands of hours debating the question of the existence of a historical Jesus prior to forming the group.....

Yes, and their bias is quite evident. Why do you assume they did any studying at all (except for market studies to see if they could make a profit)?

 

If this is the friend you refer to I would call him "mainstream," even if he no longer believes a word of it. He's well educated, obviously thoughtful, intelligent. I'll definitely check out some of his books!

 

A.J. Mattill Jr.

 

To answer your question about the Jesus Seminar, anyone familiar with it knows these scholars have thought about everything. Here's a link to some of their names: JS.

 

CC in MA

[R. S. Martin]

but no mainstream scholar would posit that Jesus did not exist.

 

WRONG. Tom Harpur may have been the first to say it out loud but he's got fans. I know scholars in mainstream universities who seriously question it. They are not necessarily fans of Harpur because they were saying it before Harpur's Pagan Christ was published.