Historical Problems in Bible

by IronGland 42 Replies latest watchtower bible

hooberus

Not all manuscripts and hense Bible versions read the same in these verses, hense the possibility of a copyist error in some of the manuscripts. Thus you will find these "contradictions" in some Bible versions and not in others. Some of the verses listed are discussed on the following site, which deals with them as being likely copyist errors in certain manuscript traditions. Copyist errors in some manuscripts do not prove that the Bible itself is full of contardictions and historical innacuracies.
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-2CHR.html
2 Chronicles 21:20, 22:1-2
Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. 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. How can a son be 42 and older than his father who dies at 40? The likely answer is a copyist error in Ahaziah's recorded age. "Forty and two" was likely once "twenty or two" -- the symbols used for these are somewhat similar, see here for a picture, and the parallel verse 2 Kings 8:26 says 22.
2 Chronicles 22:2
Was Ahaziah forty-two or twenty-two (per 2 Kings 8:26) when he ascended the throne? More likely 22, and 2 Chronicles has been hit by a copyist error. See our foundational essay on copyist errors for general background. In favor of the "22" reading in 2 Chronicles: The 2 Kings reading; some LXX and Syriac manuscripts, and that Chronicles calls Ahaziah Jehoram's "youngest son" (22:1) and Jehoram passed away at age 40 (21:20). The numbers in Hebrew for two and four look alike except for a horizontal stroke; see here for a picture.
1 Kings 16:23, 28-9
In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah...So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead. And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty and two years. Seven years, or twelve, for Omri's reign? The likely answer is a copyist error in one of the passages... see here for a picture.
There are other arguments listed in the original post, I may comment if I decide to take the time to go into those issues.
City Fan

Further to the alleged size of the Judahite and Israelite armies in 2 Chronicles 13 here are a few statistics about the Roman imperial army at the height of the Empire in the 2nd Century A.D.
At this time the Roman Empire had 3 legions in Britain, 1 in Spain, 4 along the Rhine, 11 along the Danube, 9 in the Near East and 2 in Africa. Each legion had an average of 5000 troops, each made up of 10 cohorts of 500 men approx. The imperial army numbered about 300,000 men, half of whom made up the legions.
This means, according to the bible, that Abijah's Judahite army was bigger than the legions of Rome combined and Jeroboam's Israelite army was actually 3 times the size.
Maybe the 'inspired' bible writers were prone to exagerate.
A Paduan

Abbadon
inspired of god and accurate
It seems that there is a great difficulty in separating the two ideas - as if inaccurate = uninspired
Because people who believe the Bible is accurate and inspired will use it as justification for their behaviour
I beg to differ - I think that people who think that it is historically accurate will use it as justification for their behaviour - being in fear of it - whereas people who see it as inspired may do rightfully regardless of what is written, and consider that they don't presently understand the thing that is written contrary to their kindness.
And Gumby
So basically paduan you don't CARE whether the bible is true or not or whether people believe it's true or not.
No I didn't say that For me, historically accurate writing does not equal spiritual truth. I don't see it as even being the same argument.
Nevertheless it does matter to me that people use it for bad behaviour - that is the reason I have come to post here - I'm not jw nor ever have been - some jws came and did extreme nastiness to my family while considering themselves 'gawd's righteous perfect' - I discovered firsthand that in my own community, there were a bunch of marauding fruitcakes self-justifying very unsocial behaviour - not just doing it, but justifying it.
Why? because they think the bible is 'accurate'.
How about all the people that live in fear from the bibles message such as hell, armaggedon for non believers, and the fear in believers that don't feel they are "cutting it". Does any of that matter to you?
Yes, that's why I spend time here - there seems to be few others in my society so affected and effected as jws - I figure that in my writing, most of the time, I am indirectly dispelling fears that the wt is the 'truth' - eventually this rubs off on others, especially as other truth is pondered, as opposed to no truth.
paduan
Mecurious?

It seems that there is a great difficulty in separating the two ideas - as if inaccurate = uninspired

Why would you expect anything less than accuracy from a perfect and omnipotent being?
Brian'
Tashawaa

A Paduan -
Many cultures hold sacred their "Inspired" books - the Quran (as an example) or you could look to the "Book of Mormons" that claims inspiration. Exactly how would you refute the inspiration by God of these writings if "inaccuracy does not equal un-inspired". I remember from my JW days, relying on the inaccuracy of the Book of Mormon (as an example) to comfort myself that the Bible was truly God's word and to point out the "error of their ways" when they happened to call.
If you "googled" inspired writings, you'd be amazed at how many claim God's inspiration. Perhaps he's inspired them all...
Tashawaa

Oh - I wanted to mention...
Abbadon, I admire your postings and logic - always makes sense to me
peacefulpete

I like the 2 chron 14 story about King Asa of Judah killing every last one of an invading army of 1,000,000 Ethiopians. As to Hooberu's explanation that inaccuracies resulted from copyist errors. Ok I'll suggest that any historically inaccurate or barbaric or unscientific or anachronistic passages were the result of human contamination of the holy text that God has promised to preserve forever. It is strange how those who are Bible inerranists invoke scribal error when backed into the corner. Do not the Mormons also believe that Bible is the word of God in so far as it has been accurately translated? It always bothered me to tell people thatJehovah had preserved his word through the centuries dispite Satan's evil attempts to change it then inform them about how their Bible was translated wrong or was based upon inaccurate manuscripts.
Abaddon

inspired of god and accurate
It seems that there is a great difficulty in separating the two ideas - as if inaccurate = uninspired
So, it can be inaccurate and still be inspired? It can say there was a Flood x years ago, when there’s no evidence for it and much evidence against it, and god would allow such tish to be pimped around in his/her/its name? I think we are coming from such different paradigms we may as well speak different languages, but I'll return to this in a minute...
Because people who believe the Bible is accurate and inspired will use it as justification for their behaviour
I beg to differ - I think that people who think that it is historically accurate will use it as justification for their behaviour - being in fear of it - whereas people who see it as inspired may do rightfully regardless of what is written, and consider that they don't presently understand the thing that is written contrary to their kindness.
Very good; IF they do. That is my point about literalism; it is viewed through the lens of interpretation, which is focused by enculturation. The process you speak of can only happen if someone is given the freedom of conscience to decide that, despite the fact it says, for example, to kill gay people, you should not, because nowadays that would be wrong, especially as many people feel that homosexuality does not in anyway determine if someone is good or bad.
If they grow up in a literalistic environment, they will have the primitive bigotry of the above example enculturated into them, and lose their freedom of conscience, based on ink on paper, as distinct from god’s intentions, whatever they are. Of course, as you highlight, people can believe it is inspired but imperfect, or inspired and perfect.
As there’s no evidence for it being inspired and perfect, we can ignore that one. This leaves two possibilities; it’s imperfect and inspired, or imperfect and not inspired.
As no one has ever given me any good reason for god not being able to ensure we get a perfect inspired book, and as I cannot think of one, my assumption, based on the lack of evidence for inspiration and the imperfection in the text, is that the Bible is literature, no more, no less, and is not inspired.
Obviously we can differ on this…!
hooberus

The type of minor copyist errors used by Christains to explain issues such as different ages in certain passages are vastly different than Book of Mormon changes or charges by the Mormon church that the bible is incorrectly translated. I may later give a summary of the differences.
Dansk

Hey City Fan,
I received the following from a brilliant academic friend of mine in Australia:
The size of armies is important, as

1. 80% of the population at any one time in the Ancient Near East was likely to
have been non-combatant peasantry.

2. Of the 20% of the population not engaged in direct food
production, 2/3rds would have been engaged in industry, commerce,
bureaucracy and the priesthood, and given that 50% of the population
was likely to have been under 15 years of age

Bbased upon this we can use some interesting figures.

Naram Sin of Akkad, had an army of 360,000 men - the biggest
then seen. This would give us a total population of the Akkadian
Empire of about 4 million people. This figure had been roughly
confirmed using density of settlement patterns.

Given the figures for 2 Chronicles 13:3 and the formulae above, this would
give a total population of Palestine as being far greater than
settlement patterns would allow.

City Fan, using the above formulae I estimate the total population of Israel would have to have been 20,000,000! Could you imagine, LOL, with those numbers Israel would have been THE major power in the Middle East for centuries right up to our day (but who on earth could feed them?)!
Therefore, the combined number of soldiers mentioned at 2 Chronicles 13:3, i.e. both kingdoms (Israel and Judah), is incredibly exaggerated which IMHO, therefore, brings into question all other cited numbers in scripture. In other words, the Bible contains statements that are totally untrue.
Dansk

Historical Problems in Bible

Share this