• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How you feel finding errors in your scripture?

When I find multiple errors in scripture

  • I get upset and will not easy admit a flaw

  • I can easy admit my scripture has a flaw

  • ReRead, Check context, Find new translation

  • Check Google or scripture for solutions

  • Create a new POST on RF to find out

  • Pray or Meditate hoping God answers

  • My mistake; scripture is perfect

  • Cool about it; plenty of good verses

  • Cool about it; Humans make errors

  • Happy to find errors in scripture of others


Results are only viewable after voting.

stvdv

Veteran Member
Wonderfully spoken, thanks a lot.

Someone criticizing "the inward path experiences that others share" is only proving to the world "I don't feel Love"

the path to God is again, a solitary one.
Solitary from the world, but solidarity to God.

100% completely a wrong understanding. Absolutely the opposite is true. Without it, we are all disconnected from not only the rest of humanity, but ourselves as well as disconnected from God. To connect with God, connects you as God with the whole of creation. It opens you to the world. It opens you to yourself. It opens you to others.

Anything which speaks the Truth of God is a true Messenger, including that songbird who quoted Holy Scripture to me tonight in the park. All are Divine manifestations, if you have the ears to hear, the eyes to see, and the soul to receive.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
This was about "How you feel finding errors in your scripture"
Always easier to think "how I feel" than "how other feels"
I didn't want to make it too complicated
ok.....but contradictions of philosophy (religion)
should be handled by your head and not your heart

you may quote me......
an unbridled heart is fickle

someone finding contradiction.....who then gets his feelings hurt
will falter in his belief

you can't work out the feel
using your heart
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
It would be helpful if anyone could point out the book, chapter, verse of an alleged error.

Thank you.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
ok.....but contradictions of philosophy (religion)
should be handled by your head and not your heart

you may quote me......
an unbridled heart is fickle

someone finding contradiction.....who then gets his feelings hurt
will falter in his belief

you can't work out the feel
using your heart

okay ... but contradictions of religion originate in the mind
and should therefore be handled by the heart and not your mind

you may quote me ...
a monkey mind is mad

Mind works out of fear
Heart works out of feeling

Therefore feelings are best worked out
using your heart
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
How you feel finding errors in your scripture? Is it even possible? Okay errors in scripture of others, but not in mine!

I remember when I came across errors in my favorite scripture I was far from happy. Mind tried all kinds of tricks to get around these errors.

How you feel/deal with errors you find, or when others point them out?

Easy to admit to others there is a flaw in your scripture. Or does it take some weeks before you dare speak on it.


Flaw and errors are based on the assumption that we know the purpose of the Scripture. You can't call something an error before you know what it is designed for.

The Bible is made up of human accounts of testimonies. They are used to convey a theology for God. God doesn't demand flawless humans to write their testimonies. On the other hand, humans can't call it a flaw if God's purpose for it is fulfilled perfectly.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
Flaw and errors are based on the assumption that we know the purpose of the Scripture. You can't call something an error before you know what it is designed for.

The Bible is made up of human accounts of testimonies. They are used to convey a theology for God. God doesn't demand flawless humans to write their testimonies. On the other hand, humans can't call it a flaw if God's purpose for it is fulfilled perfectly.
I can agree with that.

The Bible is made up of human accounts of testimonies, so human errors.
Maybe even that God whispered intentional some errors into the Bible.
Just checking if people follow blind or use some common sense
[I would definitely do that, if I was God. I didn't grant brains to not use them]

We never know God's plan. So beware interpreting things.

And when we are at it. When you make a business plan in the year 1990
You use the same plan in the year 2018. I don't think so, do you?
What about a business plan dating from the year ZERO, or make it ONE
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
I can agree with that.

The Bible is made up of human accounts of testimonies, so human errors.
Maybe even that God whispered intentional some errors into the Bible.
Just checking if people follow blind or use some common sense
[I would definitely do that, if I was God. I didn't grant brains to not use them]

We never know God's plan. So beware interpreting things.

And when we are at it. When you make a business plan in the year 1990
You use the same plan in the year 2018. I don't think so, do you?
What about a business plan dating from the year ZERO, or make it ONE

The same happens in courts too. Error is something invalid and needs to be corrected, but not a valid account of testimony. That lies the difference. A valid account of testimony means it's already the best humans can do out of their ability. It's not an error but the nature of what it is, in this case.


For an example, when 10 reporter are sent to an ancient war to count the death tolls they are expected to come out all with different counts because that's the nature of what it is. If on the other hand, the 10 all come out with the same number, say, 23504. It is suspected to be a false testimony because the precision doesn't lie into human accuracy by ability. In this case, you can't refer the 10 different death toll counts an error, as long as they were counted seriously by the 10 humans with the best of their ability. They are all thus valid accounts of testimonies in terms of death toll counts.

Error only means they need to be invalided or distrusted or disregarded while they shouldn't as they are valid accounts of testimonies, which is already the best humans (the 10) can do out of their abilities.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
It would be helpful if anyone could point out the book, chapter, verse of an alleged error.

Thank you.

2 Samuel 24:9 (KJV)
9 And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand [800,000] valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand [500,000]men.

1 Chronicles 21:5 (KJV)
5 And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand [1,100,000] men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand [470,000]men that drew sword.

______________________________________


2 Kings 8:26 (KJV)
26 Two and twenty [22] 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.

2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV)
2 Forty and two [42] 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.

______________________________________


1 Chronicles 3:19 (KJV)
19 And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister: [Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah]


Ezra 3:2 (KJV)
2 Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God. [Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel]

_____________________________________


Matthew 26:26-27 (KJV)
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
[First the bread then the wine]


Luke 22:17-19 (KJV)
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[First the wine then the bread]


Plus many, many others.

.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I see the Scriptures as "God's Love" for us, seeing or hearing our cries for help. We need help, God provides help by granting us Scriptures.
And I do believe that's one of the main messages besides spreading the faith.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, for example, you do not consider anachronisms to be errors because you can't subject the to any objective testing?
No.

What I said per post #23 was that if we look for objectivity in the scriptures we're barking up the wrong tree, thus the use of "errors" in that context would be misplaced.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The purpose of Hindu/Buddhist scriptures is to find truth and a system by which the society can be peaceful and happy. When people are asked to have faith without explanation, it is falsehood.
It's not "falsehood" but incompletion, such as when the Buddha was asked if there was a creator-god, he refused to answer the question. "Koans" are intentionally incomplete to try and get the student to "think out of the box".

Hinduism is much more complicated to deal with since even defining "Hinduism" is fraught with so many variations it's almost impossible to define.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
2 Samuel 24:9 (KJV)
9 And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand [800,000] valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand [500,000]men.

1 Chronicles 21:5 (KJV)
5 And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand [1,100,000] men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand [470,000]men that drew sword.

.

Uh huh...an difference in number of warriors. Would this difference material enough to say that Joab did not gave up these people to David? That Israel and Judah did not have these warriors because of the difference in reporting the number of men that drew the sword? Would this alone negate the whole Bible?

United States Is the Most Powerful Military In The World
When you think about largest armies in the world you will no doubt also think about the US, whose army which is considered the strongest and best equipped in the world. It also has the largest military budget of $610 billion which is far larger than its closest rival China at $216 billion and is (actually bigger than the next nine countries combined). The country’s army was formed way back in 1775 and since then the army of this country has come a long way. Today, it has about 1,347,300 active duty personnel. The US has the second largest army in the world and it is considered one of the best-trained and most powerfully equipped armies in the world. It has by far the most aircrafts, biggest advancement in technologies like the Navy's new rail gun, best trained human force and the world's largest nuclear arsenal. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/29-largest-armies-in-the-world.html

1,347,300 is it an exact amount? or is it an estimate? If it is more or less, would it negate the premise that the United States Is the Most Powerful Military In The World?

As a uniformed military service, the U.S. Army is part of the Department of the Army, which is one of the three military departments of the Department of Defense. The U.S. Army is headed by a civilian senior appointed civil servant, the Secretary of the Army (SECARMY) and by a chief military officer, the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) who is also a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is the largest military branch, and in the fiscal year 2017, the projected end strength for the Regular Army (USA) was 476,000 soldiers; the Army National Guard (ARNG) had 343,000 soldiers and the United States Army Reserve (USAR) had 199,000 soldiers; the combined-component strength of the U.S. Army was 1,018,000 soldiers.[4] As a branch of the armed forces, the mission of the U.S. Army is "to fight and win our Nation's wars, by providing prompt, sustained, land dominance, across the full range of military operations and the spectrum of conflict, in support of combatant commanders".[13] The branch participates in conflicts worldwide and is the major ground-based offensive and defensive force of the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army

I think the same principle would apply to 2 Samuel 24:9 (KJV) in relation to 1 Chronicles 21:5 (KJV)
I believe these number of warriors are estimates and are immaterial to affect the true message delivered as written in the Bible.

Still viewing the next allegation.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member


2 Kings 8:26 (KJV)
26 Two and twenty [22] 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.

2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV)
2 Forty and two [42] 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.

.

That is the problem when people stick to one version of the Bible when there are other translations to choose from for clarity and correctness. When one version is wrong it is wrong to conclude that the Old Testament is wrong. It would be more rational to say the person who wrote down the version was in error as another version have disclosed such properly many years ago.

Let us see what en.wikipedia has to say about Ahaziah

Ahaziah of Judah (Hebrew: אֲחַזְיָה, ʼĂḥazyāh; Greek: Οχοζιας Okhozias; Latin: Ahazia)[1] or Jehoahaz (2 Chronicles 21:17; 25:23), was a king of Judah, and the son of Jehoram and Athaliah, the daughter (or possibly sister) of king Ahab of Israel. He was also the first Judahite king to be descended from both the House of David and the House of Omri, through his mother and successor, Athaliah.

According to 2 Kings 8:26, Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign, and reigned for one year in Jerusalem. 2 Chronicles 22:2 gives his age as 42 years when his reign began in Jerusalem. Most scholars regard the 42 years in 2 Chronicles 22:2 as a copyist's error for an original 22 years. The age of 22 is also found in some Greek and Syrian versions of 2 Chronicles 22:2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahaziah_of_Judah

Now going to the different bible versions which were not affected by this copyist's error are:

AMP
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

CSB
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, granddaughter of Omri.

CEB
Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became king, and he ruled for one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah; she was the granddaughter of Omri.

CEV
He was twenty-two years old at the time, and he ruled only one year from Jerusalem. Ahaziah’s mother was Athaliah, a granddaughter of King Omri of Israel,

DARBY
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Athaliah, daughter of Omri.

ERV
He was 22 years old when he began to rule. He ruled one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah. Her father’s name was Omri.

ESV
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri.

ESVUK
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned for one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri.

EXB
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he ·ruled [reigned] one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

GNT
Ahaziah became king at the age of twenty-two, and he ruled in Jerusalem for one year. Ahaziah also followed the example of King Ahab's family, since his mother Athaliah—the daughter of King Ahab and granddaughter of King Omri of Israel—gave him advice that led him into evil.

NIV
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

Conclusion: Ahaziah was 22 when he became king not 42 as other versions of the Bible correctly states. Needless to say the incidence of the copyist's error which appeared in other Bible versions such as the KJV does not negate the Bible truths contained therein.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
1 Chronicles 3:19 (KJV)
19 And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister: [Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah]


Ezra 3:2 (KJV)
2 Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God. [Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel]

Both Pedaiah and Shealtiel are men, how come Zerubbabbel is the son to both of them?

The Hebrew Bible has conflicting texts regarding whether Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel or Pedaiah. Several texts (that are thought to be more-or-less contemporaneous) explicitly call "Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel" (Ezra 3:2,8;5:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:1,12,14). The Seder Olam Zutta also supports that position. Surprisingly, 1 Chronicles 3:17–19 makes Zerubbabel a nephew of Shealtiel: King Jeconiah is the father of Shealtiel and Pedaiah, then Pedaiah is the father of Zerubbabel.

Various attempts have been made to show how both genealogies could be true. One explanation suggests Shealtiel died childless and therefore Pedaiah, his brother, married his widow according to a Jewish law regarding inheritance (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). If so, Zerubbabel would be the legal son of Shealtiel but the biological son of Pedaiah.

The other speculation suggests the title "son of Shealtiel" does not refer to being a biological son but to being a member in Shealtiel's "household" (Hebrew: בית‎, bet). The Hebrew term "father" (Hebrew: אב‎, av) can refer to a father of a household, similar to the Latin term paterfamilias. In this sense, a man who is the "father" of a household can therefore be referred to as the "father" of his own biological siblings, nephews and nieces, or anyone else who cohabitates in his "household". Zerubbabel (and possibly his father Pedaiah) could be called a "son" if they lived in Shealtiel's household. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shealtiel

So in both sense, Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah and Shealtiel - one is the biological father and the other the surrogate
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
According to 2 Kings 8:26, Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign, and reigned for one year in Jerusalem. 2 Chronicles 22:2 gives his age as 42 years when his reign began in Jerusalem. Most scholars regard the 42 years in 2 Chronicles 22:2 as a copyist's error for an original 22 years. The age of 22 is also found in some Greek and Syrian versions of 2 Chronicles 22:2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahaziah_of_Judah

Now going to the different bible versions which were not affected by this copyist's error are:

That strikes me as not quite honest. There is a difference between:
  • unaffected versions, i.e., versions translated from unaffected sources, and
  • harmonized versions, i.e., versions that assumed a copyist error and redacted the text.

So, can you point to a Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek source that does not contain the error?
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
Matthew 26:26-27 (KJV)
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
[First the bread then the wine]


Luke 22:17-19 (KJV)
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[First the wine then the bread]

Which came first the bread or the wine? Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Would it really matter on which order to take it?

Mark 14:16-26 New International Version (NIV)
The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.”

They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Surely you don’t mean me?”

“It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
[Where's the bread?]

Would the difference in the dialogue even cast doubt to anyone that the Lord Jesus Christ held the Holy Supper with his disciples? The apostle Luke wrote - “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” not found in the Book of Matthew. The apostle Matthew wrote - “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. - not found in the Book of Luke. The apostle Mark wrote - “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” - what did the Lord Jesus say? He said all of them. They have different emphasis and they wrote as they were ordered by the Lord God on such manner that they should be written. It does not negate that the Lord Jesus Christ officiated the first Holy Supper with his disciples.
 
Top