Biblical Errors - Why Haven't They Been Fixed?

[Tintin]

Really?

So perhaps if you explained why Barnabas did not have the Holy Spirit, you could actually get to the heart of this thread.

I'll be waiting........

Your epistle of Barnabas wasn't even written by the Barnabas of Acts (who did have Holy Spirit). Also, even if he did write an epistle it wasn't included in the biblical canon, so it wouldn't be an inspired work. Finally, the epistle has nothing to do with this thread and what I opened this thread with. Do you have shares in Barnabas' epistle or something? Haha.

 

[Kefa54]

Darn... I found a great antique 17th century hand forged frog gig(spear fork) the other day.

Kefa

Before you break out the flaming torches and the pitchforks, first I want to clarify something. I believe the God's Word is His ultimate written authority to us. I believe the Bible is perfect. I believe the whole Bible is written FOR us, but that not every part is written TO us. I believe God is absolute truth and His ways don't change with the times. I believe we need to conform to Christ's image and not try and make Him conform to our image (it had to be said!) I believe we need to understand Law to understand Grace and the Old Covenant to understand the New Covenant. I believe we are saved by grace through faith alone. I even believe those wacky first 11 chapters of Genesis are history.

That said, I believe the Bible has errors. I'm not talking about doctrinal issues, I'm talking simple scribal errors. Spelling, grammar, people's names, little inventory details. Like how many chariots went to war or Cainan in the genealogies. Does anyone know why these errors haven't been corrected? The Church has known about them for a long time. Just curious. Thanks.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Your epistle of Barnabas wasn't even written by the Barnabas of Acts (who did have Holy Spirit). Also, even if he did write an epistle it wasn't included in the biblical canon, so it wouldn't be an inspired work. Finally, the epistle has nothing to do with this thread and what I opened this thread with. Do you have shares in Barnabas' epistle or something? Haha.

First you say it wasn't written by him, then you say even if it was?

Kid, just cause ole hermit has white hair dudn't make him the authority on what's God's inspired word any more than those catholic councils you seem to be trustin' in.

So far y'all aint even touched on the errors in the translations.

 

[Tintin]

First you say it wasn't written by him, then you say even if it was?

Kid, just cause ole hermit has white hair dudn't make him the authority on what's God's inspired word any more than those catholic councils you seem to be trustin' in.

So far y'all aint even touched on the errors in the translations.

Please, don't call me kid. It's rude. And I know OldHermit far better than I know you and his fruits on this site have been godly. Also, I don't trust Catholic councils. I trust godly men doing God's work.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Please, don't call me kid. It's rude. And I know OldHermit far better than I know you and his fruits on this site have been godly. Also, I don't trust Catholic councils. I trust godly men doing God's work.

Don't take it that way, I have kids older than you.

You must think God inspired those Catholic councils as to what his word is.

Come on Tin, think.

 

[oldhermit]

Don't take it that way, I have kids older than you.

You must think God inspired those Catholic councils as to what his word is.

Come on Tin, think.

The Gnostic gospels were preserved too. Does that make them inspired? Do you make a habit of believing everything that comes from antiquity as if it was from God. I suppose you believe the gospel of Thomas is inspired too just because it is called the gospel of Thomas.

 

[Spark]

I think, it is because there may have been two witness accounts ( or more). The bible concentrates on the main part of the message . How many chariots ect was not really anything to worry about. Like someone saw three someone else said four . But its ok cause those little details aren't necessary its not what we need to focus on. The thing is it happened , people witnessed it and wrote it down passed it on. Just like some of the accounts of the gospels, same story, written by two different people. Same story, same message , just slightly different in bits that aren't necessary to the message.

 

[Tintin]

I think, it is because there may have been two witness accounts ( or more). The bible concentrates on the main part of the message . How many chariots ect was not really anything to worry about. Like someone saw three someone else said four . But its ok cause those little details aren't necessary its not what we need to focus on. The thing is it happened , people witnessed it and wrote it down passed it on. Just like some of the accounts of the gospels, same story, written by two different people. Same story, same message , just slightly different in bits that aren't necessary to the message.

Yes, in the big scheme of things it doesn't matter, but while there's not much of a difference between three and four chariots, there's a huge difference between 4,000 and 40,000 chariots. An observer can't make that sort of mistake. They'd have to be worse than me at Maths! Besides, the chariots example was but one very obvious one. Cainan on the other hand, may not have even existed outside a scribal error and something like that does matter.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Yes, in the big scheme of things it doesn't matter, but while there's not much of a difference between three and four chariots, there's a huge difference between 4,000 and 40,000 chariots. An observer can't make that sort of mistake. They'd have to be worse than me at Maths! Besides, the chariots example was but one very obvious one. Cainan on the other hand, may not have even existed outside a scribal error and something like that does matter.

i actually think both numbers are correct and represent a count at two different times...the mathematics of that solution are compelling and there is also a historical basis...

 

[Tintin]

i actually think both numbers of chariots are correct and represent a count at two different times...that solution is compelling from both a historical and a very interesting mathematical point of view...

Huh. Interesting. Thanks, Rachel.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Huh. Interesting. Thanks, Rachel.

the key is that both 1 kings 4:26 and 2 chronicles 9:25 indicate that solomon had 12,000 horsemen...

2 chronicles 9:25 says that there were 4,000 stalls for those 12,000 horsemen...this means there were three horses per stall...4,000 stalls times three horses makes 12,000 horses or one for each horseman...therefore these were one horse chariots...

this is more likely that the other mathematical viable possibility of one horse pulling three warriors in a chariot because in both verse the text is specific that these were 'horsemen'...that is people controlling the horse...not merely 'passengers' carried in a chariot with one person driving...

anyway applying the suggestion of three horses per stall to 1 kings 4:26 you would get 120,000 horses in 40,000 stalls...dividing 120,000 horses by 12,000 horsemen would mean ten horses per horseman... ten horse chariots existed in ancient times...they would be unwieldy in battle...but they were symbols of the royal decadence of a wealthy king...

so the solution i favor is that 2 chronicles 9:25 is based on records from earlier in solomon's reign...where his chariot force consisted of 12,000 minimal one horse chariots...and that 1 kings 4:26 describes the situation later in solomon's reign...after the increasingly worldly king had 'upgraded' his 12,000 chariots to be showy ten horse chariots designed for pompous processions rather than any actual battles that God had largely sheltered israel from under king solomon...

 

[Tintin]

the key is that both 1 kings 4:26 and 2 chronicles 9:25 indicate that solomon had 12,000 horsemen...

2 chronicles 9:25 says that there were 4,000 stalls for those 12,000 horsemen...this means there were three horses per stall...4,000 stalls times three horses makes 12,000 horses or one for each horseman...therefore these were one horse chariots...

this is more likely that the other mathematical viable possibility of one horse pulling three warriors in a chariot because in both verse the text is specific that these were 'horsemen'...that is people controlling the horse...not merely 'passengers' carried in a chariot with one person driving...

anyway applying the suggestion of three horses per stall to 1 kings 4:26 you would get 120,000 horses in 40,000 stalls...dividing 120,000 horses by 12,000 horsemen would mean ten horses per horseman... ten horse chariots existed in ancient times...they would be unwieldy in battle...but they were symbols of the royal decadence of a wealthy king...

so the solution i favor is that 2 chronicles 9:25 is based on records from earlier in solomon's reign...where his chariot force consisted of 12,000 minimal one horse chariots...and that 1 kings 4:26 describes the situation later in solomon's reign...after the increasingly worldly king had 'upgraded' his 12,000 chariots to be showy ten horse chariots designed for pompous processions rather than any actual battles that God had largely sheltered israel from under king solomon...

Oh, wow. That's fascinating! Seems totally plausible to me. Awesome. Thanks again, Rachel.

 

[epostle]

Don't take it that way, I have kids older than you.

You must think God inspired those Catholic councils as to what his word is.

Come on Tin, think.

God inspired those Catholic councils in their discernment of which books were inspired, and which were not. They didn't invent God's word. The sacred books were already inspired, the Church didn't decide inspiration, they proved it. A disparaged group of scattered churches with no centralized authority could never have pulled it off. Without those councils, you would not have a Bible.

The History of the New Testament Canon

a nice pretty time line for you

Sources for the New Testament Canon Chart (all Protestant):
​

J. D. Douglas, ed., New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 196), 194-198;F.L. Cross and E.A. Liivingstone, ed.,
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 232, 300, 309-310, 626, 641, 724, 1049, 1069;
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago Moody Press, 1974), 109-112, 117-125.
Deeny's Simple Joys: The History of the New Testament Canon Chart

 

[T_Laurich]

Before you break out the flaming torches and the pitchforks, first I want to clarify something. I believe the God's Word is His ultimate written authority to us. I believe the Bible is perfect. I believe the whole Bible is written FOR us, but that not every part is written TO us. I believe God is absolute truth and His ways don't change with the times. I believe we need to conform to Christ's image and not try and make Him conform to our image (it had to be said!) I believe we need to understand Law to understand Grace and the Old Covenant to understand the New Covenant. I believe we are saved by grace through faith alone. I even believe those wacky first 11 chapters of Genesis are history.

That said, I believe the Bible has errors. I'm not talking about doctrinal issues, I'm talking simple scribal errors. Spelling, grammar, people's names, little inventory details. Like how many chariots went to war or Cainan in the genealogies. Does anyone know why these errors haven't been corrected? The Church has known about them for a long time. Just curious. Thanks.

[video=youtube;RdCi8CeuezY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdCi8CeuezY&ab_channel=KentHovindOFFICIAL[/video]

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The Gnostic gospels were preserved too. Does that make them inspired? Do you make a habit of believing everything that comes from antiquity as if it was from God. I suppose you believe the gospel of Thomas is inspired too just because it is called the gospel of Thomas.

Nope.

Unlike you I prayed first, and not a one liner like hey God let me be able to understand Greek.

You gotta be jokin'.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

God inspired those Catholic councils in their discernment of which books were inspired, and which were not. They didn't invent God's word. The sacred books were already inspired, the Church didn't decide inspiration, they proved it. A disparaged group of scattered churches with no centralized authority could never have pulled it off. Without those councils, you would not have a Bible.

The History of the New Testament Canon

a nice pretty time line for you

Sources for the New Testament Canon Chart (all Protestant):
​

J. D. Douglas, ed., New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 196), 194-198;F.L. Cross and E.A. Liivingstone, ed.,
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 232, 300, 309-310, 626, 641, 724, 1049, 1069;
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago Moody Press, 1974), 109-112, 117-125.
Deeny's Simple Joys: The History of the New Testament Canon Chart

Even though a kid goat tastes good seethed in it's mother's milk to my old man, I'll refrain and suffice it to say you have much to learn.

 

[oldhermit]

Nope.

Unlike you I prayed first, and not a one liner like hey God let me be able to understand Greek.

You gotta be jokin'.

Why would you accept as truth a work that is so contradictory of the rest of the gospels even to the point of denying that Jesus was the Messiah. You are believing a lie my friend.

 

[Bookends]

Before you break out the flaming torches and the pitchforks, first I want to clarify something. I believe the God's Word is His ultimate written authority to us. I believe the Bible is perfect. I believe the whole Bible is written FOR us, but that not every part is written TO us. I believe God is absolute truth and His ways don't change with the times. I believe we need to conform to Christ's image and not try and make Him conform to our image (it had to be said!) I believe we need to understand Law to understand Grace and the Old Covenant to understand the New Covenant. I believe we are saved by grace through faith alone. I even believe those wacky first 11 chapters of Genesis are history.

That said, I believe the Bible has errors. I'm not talking about doctrinal issues, I'm talking simple scribal errors. Spelling, grammar, people's names, little inventory details. Like how many chariots went to war or Cainan in the genealogies. Does anyone know why these errors haven't been corrected? The Church has known about them for a long time. Just curious. Thanks.

First, I think you have this backwards. The NT authors shed more light on the OT prophecies, not the other way around. The OT authors don't quote the NT. Once you understand how the NT authors interpreted the OT prophecies and such, then we can go back and read the OT with greater understanding. That said, I also believe once we receive greater understanding of the OT, it has a reverse effect in understanding the unclear passages in the NT. Second, in replying to your main thought, the Newer Versions have fix some problems such as grammar and spelling, but there are some things we can not fix because it is unclear how to fix them since some differences occur in ancient manuscripts due to copyists errors.

 

[Bookends]

[video=youtube;RdCi8CeuezY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdCi8CeuezY&ab_channel=KentHovindOFFICIAL[/video]

LOL,, this guy is such a joke and embarrassment to the Christian faith.

 

[JimmieD]

Before you break out the flaming torches and the pitchforks, first I want to clarify something. I believe the God's Word is His ultimate written authority to us. I believe the Bible is perfect. I believe the whole Bible is written FOR us, but that not every part is written TO us. I believe God is absolute truth and His ways don't change with the times. I believe we need to conform to Christ's image and not try and make Him conform to our image (it had to be said!) I believe we need to understand Law to understand Grace and the Old Covenant to understand the New Covenant. I believe we are saved by grace through faith alone. I even believe those wacky first 11 chapters of Genesis are history.

That said, I believe the Bible has errors. I'm not talking about doctrinal issues, I'm talking simple scribal errors. Spelling, grammar, people's names, little inventory details. Like how many chariots went to war or Cainan in the genealogies. Does anyone know why these errors haven't been corrected? The Church has known about them for a long time. Just curious. Thanks.

The critical texts, such as NA28 for the New Testament and Biblia Hebraica Quinta for the Old Testament, do correct for errors.

Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: Home

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblia_Hebraica_Quinta