contradictions of the bible.

[MCWAY]

You mean 400 thousand is no different than 470 thousand?

That's 17.5% different.

You mean you'd have no problem paying 17.5% extra next time you go shopping?  After all the store is just rounding.

Like i said, I didn't know God was a newscaster, so then it's ok for him not to be accurate because he's not contradicting when he's just being inaccurate right?

Is God perfect or not?

A purchase and a census are hardly the same thing, Ozmo (but, you knew that already!!).

Of course, this is the part where you explain how you (or any other reader for that matter) needs to know the EXACT number of men who were fighting at that time. Or that your being given a round number implies that God (or anyone else, for that matter) DOES NOT know the exact number.

Plus, the number used in 2 Samuel 24 is 500,000. 

[OzmO]

A purchase and a census are hardly the same thing, Ozmo (but, you knew that already!!).

Of course, this is the part where you explain how you (or any other reader for that matter) needs to know the EXACT number of men who were fighting at that time. Or that your being given a round number implies that God (or anyone else, for that matter) DOES NOT know the exact number.

I don't "need" to do anything.  "God" has already done it for me.  If he was rounding, the number would have not changed.

[MCWAY]

I don't "need" to do anything.  "God" has already done it for me.  If he was rounding, the number would have not changed.

Rounding to the nearest hundred-thousandths place would give you 500,000. Just like the the example with the stimulus package, rounding to the hundred-billionths place gives you $800 billion.

[Butterbean]

Seems like if some of or the whole bible was a fraud, it would have been quite simple to make everything "match" exactly and take out or change all the verses that seem to contradict each other.

Personally, I try to look into these things w/an open mind.

Thanks MCWAY for addressing some of these!

[OzmO]

Rounding to the nearest hundred-thousandths place would give you 500,000. Just like the the example with the stimulus package, rounding to the hundred-billionths place gives you $800 billion.

He then rounded in 2 different directions.  470 should have been 500  NOT  400   

He made a mistake.

Is God not perfect?

[OzmO]

Seems like if some of or the whole bible was a fraud, it would have been quite simple to make everything "match" exactly and take out or change all the verses that seem to contradict each other.

Personally, I try to look into these things w/an open mind.

Thanks MCWAY for addressing some of these!

Not that simple.  Remember when the bible was put together there were existing scrolls. Making changes would have contradicted those existing scrolls or books.   

The problem, for me, is not whether the bible was inspired by God, most religious books of any faith must have some inspiration.
The issue is whether the bible, every word of it, is the infallible 100% Word of God.


Inaccuracies negate perfection.
Inconsistencies negate perfection

[Government_Controlled]

I understand the point regarding God's accuracy. Maybe this will help.

At 2 Samuel 24:9 the figures are 800,000 Israelites and 500,000 Judeans, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 numbers Israel’s fighting men at 1,100,000 and Judah’s at 470,000. Enlisted regularly in the royal service were 288,000 troops, divided into 12 groups of 24,000, each group serving one month during the year.

There were an additional 12,000 attendant on the 12 princes of the tribes, making a total of 300,000. Apparently the 1,100,000 of 1 Chronicles 21:5 includes this 300,000 already enlisted, whereas 2 Samuel 24:9 does not. (Numbers 1:16; Deuteronomy 1:15; 1 Chronicles 27:1-22) As regards Judah, 2 Samuel 24:9 apparently included 30,000 men in an army of observation stationed on the Philistine frontiers but which were not included in the figure at 1 Chronicles 21:5. (2 Samuel 6:1) If we remember that 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles were written by two men with different views and objectives, we can easily harmonize the figures.

I can't see how a reasonable person would take this as a contradiction. Can't God choose not to be detailed? Really, it's stretching this particular incident in my opinion. Still, without detail, the Bible in this case is accurate.


GC

[OzmO]

I understand the point regarding God's accuracy. Maybe this will help.

At 2 Samuel 24:9 the figures are 800,000 Israelites and 500,000 Judeans, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 numbers Israel’s fighting men at 1,100,000 and Judah’s at 470,000. Enlisted regularly in the royal service were 288,000 troops, divided into 12 groups of 24,000, each group serving one month during the year.

There were an additional 12,000 attendant on the 12 princes of the tribes, making a total of 300,000. Apparently the 1,100,000 of 1 Chronicles 21:5 includes this 300,000 already enlisted, whereas 2 Samuel 24:9 does not. (Numbers 1:16; Deuteronomy 1:15; 1 Chronicles 27:1-22) As regards Judah, 2 Samuel 24:9 apparently included 30,000 men in an army of observation stationed on the Philistine frontiers but which were not included in the figure at 1 Chronicles 21:5. (2 Samuel 6:1) If we remember that 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles were written by two men with different views and objectives, we can easily harmonize the figures.

I can't see how a reasonable person would take this as a contradiction. Can't God choose not to be detailed? Really, it's stretching this particular incident in my opinion. Still, without detail, the Bible in this case is accurate.


GC

I agree  I wouldn't call it a contradiction now either.  But it is an inaccuracy.  Something a man would do, or write about.

[Butterbean]

Not that simple.  Remember when the bible was put together there were existing scrolls. Making changes would have contradicted those existing scrolls or books.   

 

Are you saying the bible was based on what people thought was in the scrolls, but that they didn't have the exact scrolls and so were off a bit?

Are you saying you accept the scrolls or books but not the bible?

Sorry OzmO, I'm confused.

[big L dawg]

[OzmO]

Are you saying the bible was based on what people thought was in the scrolls, but that they didn't have the exact scrolls and so were off a bit?

Are you saying you accept the scrolls or books but not the bible?

Sorry OzmO, I'm confused.

What I'm saying is that when they made the decisions as to which books or scrolls to put in or include in the bible they couldn't change them to make them match because everyone would have known because other copies of the Books/scrolls existed. 

Most of the books of the bible are are self contained books anyway and don't relate to each other except for the 4 gospels, which contain some literal inconsistencies that depending on your point of view may or may not be perceived as such.   

[Butterbean]

What I'm saying is that when they made the decisions as to which books or scrolls to put in or include in the bible they couldn't change them to make them match because everyone would have known because other copies of the Books/scrolls existed. 
 

Ah..I see what you're explaining now!

Most of the books of the bible are are self contained books anyway and don't relate to each other except for the 4 gospels, which contain some literal inconsistencies that depending on your point of view may or may not be perceived as such.  

I don't really agree w/your self contained books statement.  Have you ever checked out the cross-reference columns on the sides of the text of a book in the bible?  Seems to me that all the books have a lot of relation to others throughout the bible.  It's an interesting way to study it

[OzmO]

Ah..I see what you're explaining now!


I don't really agree w/your self contained books statement.  Have you ever checked out the cross-reference columns on the sides of the text of a book in the bible?  Seems to me that all the books have a lot of relation to others throughout the bible.  It's an interesting way to study it

What I'm saying is that, for example the book of Jeremiah does chronicle the events, life and times of Moses.  The relation i see is Jewish history.

[Dos Equis]

Most of the books of the bible are are self contained books anyway and don't relate to each other except for the 4 gospels, which contain some literal inconsistencies that depending on your point of view may or may not be perceived as such.   

That's not accurate Ozmo.  The New Testament quotes the Old Testament numerous times.  And like Stella said there are cross-references all over the place. 

[big L dawg]

That's not accurate Ozmo.  The New Testament quotes the Old Testament numerous times.  And like Stella said there are cross-references all over the place. 

so is that kinda like telling a new lie to back up an old lie.

[OzmO]

That's not accurate Ozmo.  The New Testament quotes the Old Testament numerous times.  And like Stella said there are cross-references all over the place. 

I know that;  but the essence of each book is different except the Gophels.  The letters on the NT cite things in the OT, but they are not the historical accounts of the same thing.  In other words Moses's life isn't the main subject of the book of Paul.

[Dos Equis]

so is that kinda like telling a new lie to back up an old lie.

Nope.

[Dos Equis]

I know that;  but the essence of each book is different except the Gophels.  The letters on the NT cite things in the OT, but they are not the historical accounts of the same thing.  In other words Moses's life isn't the main subject of the book of Paul.

Yes, but you said "Most of the books of the bible are are self contained books anyway and don't relate to each other except for the 4 gospels."  That's not true.  Even the essence of each book can't be different if it's quoting and/or rely on other books, which is what many parts of the New Testament does. 

The OT isn't just an historical account.   

[OzmO]

Yes, but you said "Most of the books of the bible are are self contained books anyway and don't relate to each other except for the 4 gospels."  That's not true.  Even the essence of each book can't be different if it's quoting and/or rely on other books, which is what many parts of the New Testament does. 

The OT isn't just an historical account.   

Yes, i said that, meaning that they aren't talking about the same thing in the same way the 4 gospels are all talking about Jesse's life.

The OT can be many things depending on your point of view and faith. 

[Government_Controlled]

Do you folks know what the theme of the Bible is? It does have one, which ties ALL of the books together. Even from Genesis. The first book introduces this theme. Revelation, drives it home, so to speak. Every one of the Gospels refer as well as harp on it?. Can anyone name it?. 


GC/DEA_AGENT

[Deicide]

Yes, but you said "Most of the books of the bible are are self contained books anyway and don't relate to each other except for the 4 gospels."  That's not true.  Even the essence of each book can't be different if it's quoting and/or rely on other books, which is what many parts of the New Testament does. 

The OT isn't just an historical account.     The OT isn't an historical account; it is a hodgepodge of myths, half-truths, propaganda and pseudo- history.

Fixed.

[Government_Controlled]

Quote from: Beach Bum on February 28, 2009, 11:24:22 AM

Yes, but you said "Most of the books of the bible are are self contained books anyway and don't relate to each other except for the 4 gospels."  That's not true.  Even the essence of each book can't be different if it's quoting and/or rely on other books, which is what many parts of the New Testament does. 

The OT isn't just an historical account.it is a hodgepodge of myths, half-truths, propaganda and pseudo- history.

Fixed.

Where are the half-truths?. Also, there is science, future, etc.


GC/DEA_AGENT

[Deicide]

Quote from: Beach Bum on February 28, 2009, 11:24:22 AM

Yes, but you said "Most of the books of the bible are are self contained books anyway and don't relate to each other except for the 4 gospels."  That's not true.  Even the essence of each book can't be different if it's quoting and/or rely on other books, which is what many parts of the New Testament does. 

The OT isn't just an historical account.it is a hodgepodge of myths, half-truths, propaganda and pseudo- history.


Where are the half-truths?. Also, there is science, future, etc.


GC/DEA_AGENT

Whose gimmik are you?

[big L dawg]

Whose gimmik are you?

exactly.I've been wondering this myself.no one joins a bodybuilding forum to just post on the religion threads.

[Government_Controlled]

exactly.I've been wondering this myself.no one joins a bodybuilding forum to just post on the religion threads.

I read the other forums. It's basically regurgitated info. I've been lifting for 20+ years. No need to commit on info that is correct!   



GC/DEA_AGENT