Biblical Error?

[shunyadragon]

Its not fundamental to belief unless your belief is that the Bible is the perfect Word of God with absolutely no error in it.

Even the fundamentalist Christians that believe the Bible is literal do not believe it is absolutely perfect with no errors.

I have found that other than errors in scientific knowledge (which I do not take to be critical to the meaning of the Bible as its author's originally intended), the text offers few unintentional conflicts. Sometimes its very terse language creates a perceived conflict.

The bold needs further explanation. Science is of course, not without errors, but the there is system of Methodological Naturalism, which is very functional in evolving science to eliminate errors, and increase the knowledge of science.

Errors and conflicts in the Bible are not intentional, and those that compiled the books were sincere in their efforts, but simply reflect the view of those that edited, redacted and compiled ancient texts of various sources to come with the text of the contemporary Bible.

The biggest problem with the Bible is that it is fixed in history as scripture and has limited context outside the culture and times they were written, and the conflicts with science are too much to resolve by interpretation.

 

[InChrist]

I am reposting this under a new title in the hopes of getting more interest and response. This originally comes from my thread Gradual Dominance: Esau's Descendants and The Rulers of Edom: Genesis 36

In the Bible there is the following conflict in reporting on Esau's wives...

Genesis 26
When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemathdaughter of Elon the Hittite

Genesis 36
Esau took his wives from the women of Canaan: Adah daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamahdaughter of Anah and granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite— also Basemath daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth.

Granted that in Genesis 26 we might allow that Esau only married two wives at that time, we have one match but the other wife in Genesis 26 doesn't match either of the other two offered in later scripture. And Oholibamah's father seems to be different in each case.

It would appear that either there was an unfortunate failure on the part of the editor to correct these contradictions or it was felt that both sources were authentic and although contradictory had to be kept intact. Perhaps the separation of ten chapters was the best the authors could come up with in order to minimize the impact of the contradiction. In any case this would appear to be a fairly clear cut example of literalistic error in the Bible.

This may be one possible explanation...

"Solution: The wives of Esau were four—Judith, the daughter of Beeri; Basemath, who was also named Adah, the daughter of Elon; Aholibamah the daughter of Anah; and Basemath the daughter of Ishmael. The reason Judith is not mentioned in Genesis 36:2–3 is because she bore him no children, and Genesis 36 is a statement of “the records of the generations of Esau” (Gen. 36:1, nasb). Also, it was a common practice for men and women to be known by more than one name. Apparently, Basemath, the daughter of Elon, was also named Adah and is so identified in Genesis 36:2 in order to distinguish her from Basemath the daughter of Ishmael. So Esau had four wives."
Is there a Bible contradiction in Genesis 26:34?

 

[sealchan]

This may be one possible explanation...

"Solution: The wives of Esau were four—Judith, the daughter of Beeri; Basemath, who was also named Adah, the daughter of Elon; Aholibamah the daughter of Anah; and Basemath the daughter of Ishmael. The reason Judith is not mentioned in Genesis 36:2–3 is because she bore him no children, and Genesis 36 is a statement of “the records of the generations of Esau” (Gen. 36:1, nasb). Also, it was a common practice for men and women to be known by more than one name. Apparently, Basemath, the daughter of Elon, was also named Adah and is so identified in Genesis 36:2 in order to distinguish her from Basemath the daughter of Ishmael. So Esau had four wives."
Is there a Bible contradiction in Genesis 26:34?

Given what I have read in Genesis I could see this as reasonable. Perhaps its peripheral (unimportant) context has precluded any later emendation such as "also known as Adah" to be added for clarity. And maybe the meaning of the names is also meant to be a clue, one which I am not picking up on.

I won't greatly fault the work for being perfectly clear but perhaps this having two names thing was more readily apparent for the original audience of this scripture than it was for those reading it afterwards.

I appreciate the efforts of those who have provided specific explanations.

 

[sealchan]

I think the confusion came in when we thought that Bashemath daughter of Elon in Genesis 26:34 was the same person as Bashemath daughter of Ishmael in Genesis 36:2. To solve this issue we need to refer to the Apocryphal book of Jasher as well. Note that the spelling in the name varies a little in the two books.

I assorted this to a natural chronological order as made sense to me:

And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Be-e´ri the Hittite, and Bash´emath the daughter of Elon the Hittite: which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.' - Genesis 26:34-35

“And when Esau saw that Jacob had fled and escaped from him, and that Jacob had cunningly obtained the blessing, then Esau grieved exceedingly, and he was also vexed at his father and mother; and he also rose up and took his wife and went away from his father and mother to the land of Seir, and he dwelt there; and Esau saw there a woman from amongst the daughters of Heth whose name was Bosmath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and he took her for a wife in addition to his first wife, and Esau called her name Adah, saying the blessing had in that time passed from him.” - Jasher 29:12

'and Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; then went Esau unto Ish´ma-el, and took unto the wives which he had Ma´halath the daughter of Ish´ma-el Abraham's son, the sister of Neba´joth, to be his wife. ' - Genesis 28:8-9
“Then he went to the house of Ishmael his uncle, and in addition to his older wives he took Machlath the daughter of Ishmael, the sister of Nebayoth, for a wife.” - Jasher 29:43

"And in the third year of Jacob's dwelling in Haran, Bosmath, the daughter of Ishmael, the wife of Esau, bare unto him a son, and Esau called his name Reuel." - Jasher 30:17

"And in the sixth year Esau took for a wife, in addition to his other wives, Ahlibamah, the daughter of Zebeon the Hivite, and Esau brought her to the land of Canaan." - Jasher 30:24

Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholiba´mah the daughter of Anah the granddaughter of Zib´e-on the Hivite; and Bash´emath Ish´ma-el's daughter, sister of Neba´joth.' - Genesis 36:2-3

So in the course of Esau's life we see that he married to at least 4 different women:
1. Judith daughter of Beeri (does not appear in Genesis 36) [deceased?]
2. Bashemath daughter of Elon. Name later changed to Adah.
3. Aholibamah daughter of Anah
4. Mahalath daughter of Ishmael. Name later changed to Bashemath.

I have seen in Genesis where there was obviously some story context not repeated in scripture which was probably familiar with the original audience. The meaning and context and even the sense of contradiction then would not be so apparent to the authors of this text as what they knew was a given.

 

[Thinking Homer]

I have seen in Genesis where there was obviously some story context not repeated in scripture which was probably familiar with the original audience. The meaning and context and even the sense of contradiction then would not be so apparent to the authors of this text as what they knew was a given.

That's true. It seems in Esau's time it was common practice for men to rename women after they married them. Hence where the confusion came.

 

[sealchan]

So at this point I think that I can answer my question regarding these two scriptures with the following considerations based on what everyone has provided:

Apparent contraditons could be...

• Copyist errors
• Indications of context (extra-Biblical stories) missing in the Biblical narrative familiar to the author's and original audience
• Terseness
• An assumption of a person having more than one name or two different people having the same name vs conflicting traditional understandings unresolved in the text

Fair enough.

 

[sealchan]

Even the fundamentalist Christians that believe the Bible is literal do not believe it is absolutely perfect with no errors.



The bold needs further explanation. Science is of course, not without errors, but the there is system of Methodological Naturalism, which is very functional in evolving science to eliminate errors, and increase the knowledge of science.

Errors and conflicts in the Bible are not intentional, and those that compiled the books were sincere in their efforts, but simply reflect the view of those that edited, redacted and compiled ancient texts of various sources to come with the text of the contemporary Bible.

The biggest problem with the Bible is that it is fixed in history as scripture and has limited context outside the culture and times they were written, and the conflicts with science are too much to resolve by interpretation.

I trust the findings of science on cosmology, biology, archeology over the accounts of history and events in the Bible generally given they have a much greater explanatory power and given that such details don't fundamentally take away from the truth of scripture. I would never claim that science is perfect, only much better than the Bible in these areas of knowledge.

 

[Thinking Homer]

An assumption of a person having more than one name or two different people having the same name vs conflicting traditional understandings unresolved in the text

I think when dealing with characters in the Bible, the genealogy is very important, especially for women. The name may change over time, but the genealogy doesn't.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I am reposting this under a new title in the hopes of getting more interest and response. This originally comes from my thread Gradual Dominance: Esau's Descendants and The Rulers of Edom: Genesis 36

In the Bible there is the following conflict in reporting on Esau's wives...

Genesis 26
When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemathdaughter of Elon the Hittite

Genesis 36
Esau took his wives from the women of Canaan: Adah daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamahdaughter of Anah and granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite— also Basemath daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth.

Granted that in Genesis 26 we might allow that Esau only married two wives at that time, we have one match but the other wife in Genesis 26 doesn't match either of the other two offered in later scripture. And Oholibamah's father seems to be different in each case.

It would appear that either there was an unfortunate failure on the part of the editor to correct these contradictions or it was felt that both sources were authentic and although contradictory had to be kept intact. Perhaps the separation of ten chapters was the best the authors could come up with in order to minimize the impact of the contradiction. In any case this would appear to be a fairly clear cut example of literalistic error in the Bible.

Yeah when it takes you 'til Genesis 26 and Genesis 36 to find an error, you can at least sort of conclude that there aren't many errors.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Even the fundamentalist Christians that believe the Bible is literal do not believe it is absolutely perfect with no errors.
.

I can't see how anyone could think all the Bible is literal. Literal in everything that is.
The parable illustrations are Not literal happenings, but illustrative picture stories serving to teach a lesson.

When it comes to Bible truths they do Not change. Church customs or traditions change.
That does Not make the Bible as wrong, but makes those church customs or traditions just taught as being Scripture, that is what is wrong.

 

[blü 2]

I am reposting this under a new title in the hopes of getting more interest and response. This originally comes from my thread Gradual Dominance: Esau's Descendants and The Rulers of Edom: Genesis 36

In the Bible there is the following conflict in reporting on Esau's wives...

Genesis 26
When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemathdaughter of Elon the Hittite

Genesis 36
Esau took his wives from the women of Canaan: Adah daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamahdaughter of Anah and granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite— also Basemath daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth.

Granted that in Genesis 26 we might allow that Esau only married two wives at that time, we have one match but the other wife in Genesis 26 doesn't match either of the other two offered in later scripture. And Oholibamah's father seems to be different in each case.

It would appear that either there was an unfortunate failure on the part of the editor to correct these contradictions or it was felt that both sources were authentic and although contradictory had to be kept intact. Perhaps the separation of ten chapters was the best the authors could come up with in order to minimize the impact of the contradiction. In any case this would appear to be a fairly clear cut example of literalistic error in the Bible.

This matters why?

 

[shunyadragon]

I can't see how anyone could think all the Bible is literal. Literal in everything that is.
The parable illustrations are Not literal happenings, but illustrative picture stories serving to teach a lesson.

When it comes to Bible truths they do Not change. Church customs or traditions change.
That does Not make the Bible as wrong, but makes those church customs or traditions just taught as being Scripture, that is what is wrong.

This depends on what you call 'truths that do not change.'

 

[shunyadragon]

This matters why?

The Geneology of the Bible does not count much if at all.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This depends on what you call 'truths that do not change.'

Yes, and I find that depends on what "Jesus" calls ' truths that do Not change.'
Jesus taught that Scripture is ' religious truth ' at John 17:17.
Jesus based his teachings on such ' religious truths ' by often referring to the old Hebrew Scriptures on which to base his teachings, and explaining them for us.
Those 1st-century teachings have Not changed, but the teachings of 'Christendom' (apostate Christianity) is what has changed. Often ' churches ' teach their own traditions or customs as being Scripture when Not found in Scripture.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, and I find that depends on what "Jesus" calls ' truths that do Not change.'
Jesus taught that Scripture is ' religious truth ' at John 17:17.
Jesus based his teachings on such ' religious truths ' by often referring to the old Hebrew Scriptures on which to base his teachings, and explaining them for us.
Those 1st-century teachings have Not changed, but the teachings of 'Christendom' (apostate Christianity) is what has changed. Often ' churches ' teach their own traditions or customs as being Scripture when Not found in Scripture.

We have no gospels from the first century church.

 

[blü 2]

The Geneology of the Bible does not count much if at all.

And I'd have said the meaning to be attributed to ancient typos was not a pressing concern. But perhaps I'm missing something and @sealchan will put me straight.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I'd have said the meaning to be attributed to ancient typos was not a pressing concern. But perhaps I'm missing something and @sealchan will put me straight.

Trivia or the pursuit of frog hairs.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

We have no gospels from the first century church.

I find we do have the gospel according to Matthew
I find we do have the gospel according to Mark
I find we do have the gospel according to Luke
I find we do have the gospel according to John

So, those four (4) gospel accounts are in the Bible which the entire Bible ended at the end of the first century.
We are forewarned what would happen after the first century ended at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30.

 

[shunyadragon]

I find we do have the gospel according to Matthew
I find we do have the gospel according to Mark
I find we do have the gospel according to Luke
I find we do have the gospel according to John

So, those four (4) gospel accounts are in the Bible which the entire Bible ended at the end of the first century.
We are forewarned what would happen after the first century ended at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30.

There is no evidence of the four gospels existing from the first century.

 

[Thinking Homer]

The Geneology of the Bible does not count much if at all.

Have you read the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew? Clearly the Jewish audience felt it was important to know the genealogy of Jesus if he was truly who he claimed to be.