Open letter to Christians

[orangebox21]

Please define what you mean by 'contradicts'.

Am I talking to Bill Clinton?  I'll do that for you... right after you define what you mean by 'define.'

Any good debate or involved discussion should begin with the parties involved defining their terms.  Define:  Give a comprehensive and precise meaning of a word or concept.  

Anyway, you suggest that there are no contradictions in the Bible, or at the very least you are playing dumb with me.  Ok, I'll play along.

Here's a simple one:

2 Kings 8:26 vs 2 Chronicles 22:2.

---

Is a copyist error a contradiction?  This is why it is important to define terms.  Quoting from the first source:  "Supporting this answer [copyist error] to the “number problems” in Chronicles are various ancient manuscripts such as the Syriac, the Arabic, at least one Hebrew manuscript, and a few of the Septuagint manuscripts—all of which contain the correct ages for these kings in 2 Chronicles (22 and 18 rather than 42 and 8)."  What makes this interesting is that it is actually the multiple lines of transmission that allows us to recognize the copyist error for what it is.  I will also note that of the modern English translations only the KJV maintains the discrepancy.

The following sources all comment on the purposed contradiction.
First source
Second source
Third source
Haley, John.  Alleged Bible Contradictions.

---

Here's a more complicated one:

---

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30,Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah with the underscore is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.

By the way, it turns out that it is Zedekiah. Jeremiah 37:1 confirms this.

---

---

Here the contradiction is a fabrication from ignorance (an ignorance I shared prior to my research).  The contradiction isn't a contradiction at all, but is a result of improper hermeneutics, namely ignoring the historical context.  First note the text.  The word 'born' is only associated with the 'first' one in the list.  The rest are designated as second, third, and fourth.  Also note that the word 'younger' doesn't appear in the text either, it is inferred because Shallum is listed after Zedekiah and he is considered the fourth child.  There are two historical differences to note.  First, in our society we list children in the order they were born.  So given the list, my children are:  Jackey, Jim, Bill, and Nancy, we recognize this list as ordered chronologically.  So in our culture, the phrase "third child" means the third one born, and in this case would be Bill.  However in the Jewish culture, only the firstborn is noteworthy (due to the significance of the birth right), and when given a genealogical list, the first born is specified and the rest are listed in various orders depending upon the context.  Secondly, the word 'first born' doesn't necessarily mean the first one physically born.  Isaac was considered Abraham's 'first-born' even though he wasn't physically the first one born, but was the child who had the birth right (God's promise to Abraham would be through Isaac).  In this case of 1 Chronicles 3:15, the first born is specified, and refers to both physical birth and birth right, and the rest are listed in the order of importance relative to their reign over Israel.

Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. I Chronicles 3:15.  After the firstborn, he list them in terms of importance as rulers in Israel.  The focus is on Jehoikim and his son Jehoichin who is in captivity.  Jehoiakim ruled 11 years and was the last king on the throne of David. The 70 yr captivity prophesied by Jeremiah began during his reign 605 BC (Jer 25:1-14).  None of his descendants ruled (the last two "kings" Jehoiachin, who was carried off into the captivity, and Zedekiah are merely appointments of Babylon).  But Zedekiah nevertheless was placed over Judah for 11 years, Shallum was in power for only 3 months.  After the firstborn  they are placed in order not of age but of significance. That often happens in genealogies.  

---

The foundational objection I have to the "the Bible is full of contradictions" argument is the [at least appearance of] ignorance of the narrative of argumentation that has been going on for generations.  John Haley captures the essence of this problem when he wrote, and I'm paraphrasing, "a skeptic will assert a Bible contradiction.  Someone will spend hours in research formulating a proper response.  Then, some time later, a person will assert the same contradiction as if no one has ever written anything on the subject."  That's the problem.  If you really think that your first example is a contradiction, shouldn't you have provided a counterargument as to why it isn't true that the inconsistency is due to a copyist error?  If you really think that your second example is a contradiction, shouldn't you have provided evidence to support the counterargument that no, in fact, Jewish genealogies are always ordered chronologically?  You're speaking as if no one has ever written anything on the subject.    

Next you ask me for evidence that scribes prayed for God's help when translating or copying.  I have none.  But just so we're clear, you want me to believe that men who devote their lives to God and pray before eating a donut will not take the time to pray before transcribing the word of God?

Yes, especially because no scribe ate a donut.  Seriously though, you made a positive knowledge claim.  I'm asking you to defend the claim with evidence.  Certainly I find it reasonable to assume that scribes would pray for wisdom and guidance before embarking on such a meaningful task.  At the same time, when Jesus walked the earth who was he hard on?  Who killed him?  Wasn't it at least in part the teachers of the law and the scribes?  Didn't he call them snakes and sons of snakes?  The point here is that you've made a knowledge claim for something you admit to have no evidence of, and clearly the issue isn't as straight forward as you claim it to be.  

You then ask for evidence that "without God's direct restraint everything would be under Satan's control.  Is that true?  Can you prove it?"  Yes I can prove it. Your Bible says that Satan is the god of this world. 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Yet God rules over Satan.  Does everyone act in accordance with God's prescriptive will?  Would everyone act in accordance with Satan's prescriptive will?

"What do you mean here?  We have enough manuscripts and various lines of transmission to determine where the textual variants are.  The vast majority of these variants have no effect on the meaning of the text, though some do."

I said I am assuming in the favor of Christianity that the errors are not contradictions in the original manuscripts but rather are transcriber errors.  Would you prefer we change this working assumption?

Then reconcile your quote in post #1 when your opening statement is:

"It is factual that the Bible contradicts itself."

"Can we determine the truth value of every claim in the Bible?  Is it possible to prove that God is all knowing apart from His word?"

So evidence is not required for the claim that a being with infinite knowledge exists? Yet you are grilling me here on every fine little detail.

That's a misrepresentation of what I said.  I did not say evidence is not required for the claim that a being with infinite knowledge exists.  I asked you, in response to what you wrote, if it was possible to use our intellect to determine the truth value of each claim in the Bible.  Namely, how would you use your intellect to determine the truth value of the statement that "God is all knowing?"

"Weird, I thought Luke was a physician."

Cute.  I was referring to Joshua.  Still playing dumb I see.

Initially you wrote:  "the Bible and the Declaration of Independence - were written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists," and your claiming the meaning of that statement is:  "the parts of the Bible that Joshua wrote and the Declaration of Independence- were written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists."

"Is an argument based upon the genetic fallacy in any way reasonable?"

Do you have any intention of reading Mein Kampf to see if there is a deity speaking through the author?  After all, let's not jump to conclusions about Hitler.  He didn't even commit as many war crimes as the authors of the Bible.

Doubling down on the fallacy then?