Biblical Contradiction?
 

1 Samuel 16:10-11 vs. 1 Chronicles 2:13-15.

There appears to be a discrepancy concerning whether David was the seventh or eighth born son. Any thoughts?

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Did any of David's brothers do anything sinful that might have excluded them from the second geneology presented?

It certainly looks like a contradiction.

It could be that each section of Scripture was compiled from different source texts. I've seen that several times. For example the Old Testament may be quoted in the New Testament and the NT quotation be from the Septuagint while the OT verse in question is translated from the Masoretic Text in our Bibles so the two don't read exactly alike. Perhaps in one source text David is recorded as being the eight son while in the second there is a reason unspecified as to why he is listed as the seventh.

But that is a very interesting question.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Jessie made 7 sons

Jesse made seven of his sons
and
David was the seveth son
David the seventh

no contridiction that I see

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

The seven of his sons were rejected. David was brought to Samuel after those seven.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

This is where many get all tangled up. They think that the Bible absolutely has to be "perfect" and without contradictions or translational errors. LOL Only the original texts were inerrant, and we don't have those today. We have translations that are a Frankenstien patchwork based off multiple source texts for various passages. Sometimes one source text doesn't agree with the other. However, translators will tell you that the translations themselves are of the best quality available, so each text was taken for their respective passages.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Eh, what's a few jots and tittles here and there? :lol

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

There are so many reasons why this may not be a contradiction, such as a death of one of the sons could have occurred between the two accounts, for example. It is not a good example of contradictions in the Bible, I think.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Was 1 Sam written before 1 Chron? And was 1 Chron written when those seven sons were still alive? Not sure there is any precedent for excluding dead people from genealogies. Most of them were written long after all of the people named were dead.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Matthew 1 shows absence of certain people in lineages due to lack of certain significance. It may be that no significant thing occurred with one boy for a chronicler to mention him, or he never had any sons, himself, to bother mentioning him in the genealogy, or it may be that since we do not read Jesse only ever had seven sons in the instance with Samuel, only seven of the eight were there.

I like what one man said:

There is a choice as to the ground upon which one stands in reviewing the matter of Bible difficulties. One may choose to presuppose that the Bible is without error, which acknowledging that it contains some very hard-to-explain texts. Or one can presuppose that the Bible is full of error, although it may also still contain many truths. One's presuppositions often prove determinative.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

There is a third option: just look and see what's there. Why presuppose it's without error? Why presuppose it's "full of error"?

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

It's not a conscious thing people do when they presuppose. It's their bend. I always say there are many things I do not know yet, and to make a leap and claim there is an error in such a Book like the Bible, that is 2,000 years + old, without knowing the possible many factors our culture does not comprehend, or details in obscure passages in the bible that might explain an issue that we missed, can be a bit arrogant, I think. In other words, approach it from the perspective of giving it the benefit of the doubt first. :D

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

That's exactly what I did, for the first 40+ years of my life. :thumbsup

I recall hearing one of the big-name apologists of today (one of the household names, like McDowell, Strobel, etc.) say something along these lines. Wish I could remember who, but he said essentially that one must start with the assumption that the Bible is true, and work from there. That struck me as odd, when I heard it: with that assumption, it is always possible to dismiss any "alleged" contradictions or errors one finds. But one could say that about any "holy" book.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

The approach you heard was correct, I believe, since it involves faith. Whenever anything has to do with God -- even the Bible -- FAITH is simply unavoidable. In other words, it is contradictory to believe in the God which we believe the Bible speaks about, and not use faith in trusting those very words about Him. The Bible, itself, says that faith is integral to anything to do with God. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. In other words, there are some things that are simply not there for the five senses to stand upon, which the Bible claims we must stand upon, in order to live a life for God. To cast away faith in even the approach to the Word of God, the Bible, is to diminish the entire basis of belief in the God of the Bible. In short, there is no other way to approach the issue if one decides to believe in God.

It's like wanting to be a swimmer and hating the water.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

I agree with most of the above, but we should add:

One can certainly believe in God without believing the Bible.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

I agree, but it really cannot be the God of the Bible we believe in, in that case. This ultimately means we have our own God Whom we choose to exist as we wish Him to exist. And it leaves our basis of belief in an entirely different bracket of contradiction, I think. We will have faith IN SOME aspects about God noted in the bible, but not all. To say the Bible is not God's Word, and yet believe in the Jesus of the Bible, as well as the gospel therein, but yet not exert faith in the issues about the Word, is offkey, I think.

How much IS true in the bible and how much is not? What else might not be true that we think is true? If part is true, then who is to say which part? This simply eventually leads to no faith at all. And God is left to be Someone Whom we simply cannot know the truth about whatsoever - ultimately.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

True.

I have my reasons for believing what I do about God. It has nothing to do with wishing.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Whatever your reasons are, they are arbitrary when it comes to Who God actually is, and why we think He is so. You might not consider it wishing, but it still may be! This brings the validity of your reasons into question, and one can then wonder whether your perception of what you feel is a basis for your God was correct to begin with. As people claim, if one thinks Abraham was mad when he set out to slay Isaac, and it was not God at all, then who is to say your basis of belief is not skewed due to your perception being offkey as well, though not necessarily mad. I think it's a roller coaster that leads to chaos, personally.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Roller coasters are in the eye of the beholder! :lol

I consider myself to have jumped off the roller coaster of Biblical chaos, actually. Look at the enormous variety of beliefs that Bible-believers adhere to, and fight over! They can't even agree on what's important to argue about!

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Truth is in the eye of the beholder as well.

But we can say the same thing about people who choose to believe their version of God and not that of the Bible. We cannot consider faith based upon others, for that again is not taking the Bible as the source of our beliefs we have faith in. Anyone who carefully considers the ramifications of one's belief system when taking the road you claim you are taking, again I believe, will lead to chaos. A person just cannot seriously go all the way with such a system, or else one will see the chaotic ends it leads to. I think all of this simply satisfies the flesh, since the truth of the bible certainly slaps flesh and self squarely in the face.

A person just cannot seriously think of God when one goes down this read, or one will simply not believe in God at all since it will seem to be an effort of futility.

Again, this is just what I see in the issue.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Folks, the Bible has errors... for example I John 5:7 was never in the original texts but it's revered the world over in KJV Bibles. That's called an addition to the text, it's errant from the original translation. Even Matthew 28:19 is questionable. And in the KJV the second clause of Romans 8:1 is an insertion based on verse 4, wasn't in the original text.

I hold the view that the original texts were inerrant, however, we don't have them. Our translations of those texts are often flawed and definately mistranslation is errant. For example, consider the KJV's Genesis 49:6:

Genesis 49:6
6O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.

Is that an accurate translation? Nope. It's absolutely wrong. That's called an error.

So while "translations" of the original texts are indeed errant because they have passed through the filter of human hands, the message of these texts is indeed the truth. For example in reference to David being the seventh or the eighth son... the point is... he was the least of his brethren.

That's the point or truth of the story.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

If I understand what you're saying ("chaos" = "sin"?), you have a point. Sort of. Sure, there are unbelievers who are "slaves to sin" as you might put it, selfishly pursuing their own desires, without a care for others, and without feeling incentive (neither a carrot nor a stick, afterlife-wise) to do otherwise. But there are also unbelievers who are good, law-abiding, generous, kind, and loving folks (though certainly not perfect), who live life as if it is its own reward.

Likewise, there are believers who are good, kind, and loving (whether it's because of the carrot/stick thing or not), and there are believers who are not. This world is not their home, after all -- a drop in the bucket, compared to "eternity" -- and they are depending on grace to save them, I suppose. Or maybe they are just blind to their own ugliness. (Some of that ugliness is actually spawned from their "faith"! Extreme, and thankfully rare, example: Fred Phelps. Talk about chaos! ;))

Speaking of afterlife, I still contend that there is lots more chaos (in its normal definition, not as "chaos = sin") in believing there is such a thing -- chaos in the hand-wringing and fear and trembling and arguing over how to make sure it's a good one, and hoping they got it right! -- than in a simple agnostic approach: it is what it is, we have no way of knowing what (if anything) it is until we get there, and we will trust God to do the right thing (if it comes to that).

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Y'all need to try reading Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman. It will clear up some of these discrepancies.

BTW. It will give you undeniable evidence that the Bible is literally full of holes and contradictions. Metaphorically, its like taking one book of the Bible and making it fight to the death with another and neither surviving. Good Read.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Timmy,

I do not necessarily mean sin=chaos. It is just that I think we wreak havoc of our souls in general in regards to ever really being saved in the end when we go the route of questioning whether or not the Bible is God's Word. As I said, seriously considering the ramifications of there being parts of the Bible that are outright errors, leaves one open to question what else is actually error as well.

I am not talking about whether people are good people in or out of the church. I am talking about the state of their souls in the eyes of God as He sees it. God has truth and nobody's opinion about what that truth is is going to change His actual truth.

And all the arguing and existent chaotic things that really do occur amongst alleged believers does not change the fact as to whether or not the Bible is God's Word, if it is.

For example, it's the same thing as wondering which religion is right, if any, amidst a myriad of religions in the earth. One is not to focus on that. If there is a God, as we all know there is, He deals with each of us subjectively and can answer prayer to reach us with His truth if we do indeed pray for it. I have to simply be as utmost honest with myself as possible and sincerely seek God. And amongst the bickering and anxiety about truth that is out there, I am convinced genuine faith removes all of that and draws one to actual truth in the end.

Again, it all boils down to faith. I see no faith in the agnostic way, which is actually the way of modern textual criticism, by the way.

And Aquila,

I have no problem with Matt 28:19 or 1 John 5:7. None of them mars any truth I see in the bible, and I am oneness.

I see no holes in the bible either, Apollo. I live by faith for God and apply that same faith to the issue of the written word. And those of like minded faith were behind the Textus Receptus for centuries. Whereas those who approach the word as agnostics and with naturalistic thinking do not. :) Makes perfect sense in the logic of faith to me!

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Just want to put my 2 cents worth in just because that's how I am lol.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

With these two passages I want to say first Paul tells us scripture is prophetable for doctrine,instruction in righteouseness,reproof, and corection. I don't see in the passage in question any way that Jesse haveing 7 or 8 sons will have any beering on how I need to serve God.

and prophecy is for edification exhortation and comfort again I don't see how Jesse haveing 7 or 8 son affects my walk with God.
We know that 99 % of the word of God has been proven historicly to be acurate therefore that leaves little to have to take on faith. So either you believe in God or not. If you do we study the word to find out how to please God, and Jesse haveing 7 or 8 sons does not give us light on that subject.

Just my two cents worth.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Amen.

I think many feel the need to cling to something tangible that they can claim is in errant. I fear they aren't seeing the forest for the trees. God never intended us to put the Bible on a pillar of absolute perfection... we'd worship it if it were absolutely perfect. Some who feel that a given translation is absolutely inerrant almost make an idol of it. I know many men who "love the Word" and truly know the Word... but they don't really know Jesus. You can commit every word of the Bible to memory and be able to exegete every passage... but it will not save you. You might feel the obsessive compulsive need to carry a Bible with you in your pocket... but it doesn't purify you.

Folks, only the original texts were absolutely inerrant. There isn't a translation available without various errors. In my studies it isn't even an issue of which Bible translation is best... I've discovered that in most cases it's a matter of which translation has the best translation of a given passage. The KJV might have a better translation of one passage while the ESV has a better translation of another. And then there are some where both the KJV and the ESV fall down and the NRSB is best.

We need to be intellectually honest with the Scriptures. We need to reverence God's Word... but without making it like an idol. We don't worship a book... we worship Jesus.

I want to share a personal experience. I sat down with a little children's Bible once and I read about the crucifixion. It was so simple and so precious that I wept. I cried like a baby. I couldn't put it down. I turned from one story to another and just read them with tears running down my face. God was so present, even though it was a children's Bible. I was so moved that I plan on using that children's Bible some day in an adult home Bible study. It was just so pure and so simple. Folks... sometimes we make it far too complicated. I'd like to recommend that we all sit down with a children's Bible every so often and just read and re-visit those stories and books that we cherish... from a child's perspective. I was so blessed by it.

Likewise, all of our translations (including the KJV) have errors, be they originating from mistranslation or contradictory source texts for different passages. But like a children's Bible... they contain the greatest story ever told. That's what this is all about. Now... go tell someone the story.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Bro. Blume... you're not the only one on this planet. Hello Bro. lol

I'll be honest, when I was searching and comparing the doctrines of Oneness and Trinity I John 5:7 bothered the daylights out of me. I heard jumbled up and twisted explanations of what it meant... but all those explanations didn't allow it to say what it plainly said. Now, when I found out that the verse is nothing but hey and stubble, I felt vindicated.

And then there's another concern that I have with your statement above. I don't think you see what you're unintentionally saying. You're saying that it doesn't matter to you if someone added to the Word of God as long as we reverence the translation you prefer. You don't mind if someone really believes that I John 5:7 is the "Word of God" (when it's been proven that it's not) if they are using the translation you hold dear. Bro... something about that is unsettling.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

What is that supposed to mean? :)

I noticed that 1 John 5:7 mentioned the WORD, not SON. And the WORD is eternal. Had it mentioned SON, there would be a great problem. Again, I see no problem with it all. It actually enhanced my thoughts since I was always challenging people to show where God is three "anythings" in scripture. And I would say the only literal reference to "three" with God says "these three are one". This always stumped those against Oneness when I mentioned it.

That is nothing like what I am saying intentionally or unintentionally, since I already stated I do not believe there are any additions to the word.

I do not believe it has been proved that this is not God's word. I know all the claims, but they're not concrete. I understand and agree with your point that the issue of David being 7th or 8th in the family is not a concern as much as him being least. However, why take that route of contradiction when there are so many possible alternative explanations that show no contradiction?

When we start down this road, regardless of who we are, and we question parts of the scripture, we will begin to doubt what else may be error apart from some minor instances of which number a kid is in his family. Otherwise, a person just cannot think of it that much. Sorry, I just see it that way, even if it's a minority view. I do not worship the KJV, nor the TR. After a load of study on the issue for a few years, I just believe it is accurate. And it is all based upon FAITH in an aspect of theology that I honestly think that many have not considered really does requires faith. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the critics against the KJV have a flaw in not involving faith in this issue of God's Word, since they treat the book like any ancient book subject to time's interpolations of man, etc. If God took pains to inspire it, then He sensibly realized He would preserve it as well. Or else, why inspire it to begin with? Seems dumb to me to inspire the Word initially and then leave it happenstance and additions by man in the end. This was the faith concept of the TR adherents down through the centuries, a I honestly see a breakdown of true faith that considers this in the modern church world today. That is was is unsettling.

Outside of all criticism and intellect and analysis, there is an element of FAITH we must have, that modern criticism totally lacks. I think you will all find that you will be shocked when the day is over as to how God actually had His hand on the written word all these centuries.

Let me repeat a quote I made elsewhere:

(a) The Naturalistic, Critical View of the Textus Receptus

Naturalistic textual critics, of course, for years have not hesitated to say that the Protestant Reformers were badly mistaken in their reliance upon the Textus Receptus. According to these scholars, the Textus Receptus is the worst New Testament text that ever existed and must be wholly discarded. One of the first to take this stand openly was Richard Bentley, the celebrated English philologian. In an apology written in 1713 he developed the party line which naturalistic critics have used ever since to sell their views to conservative Christians. (1) New Testament textual criticism, he asserted, has nothing to do with Christian doctrine since the substance of doctrine is the same even in the worst manuscripts. Then he added that the New Testament text has suffered less injury by the hand of time than the text of any profane author. And finally, he concluded by saying that we cannot begin the study of the New Testament text with any definite belief concerning the nature of God's providential preservation of the Scriptures. Rather we must begin our study from a neutral standpoint and then allow the results of this neutral method to teach us what God's providential preservation of the New Testament text actually has been. In other words, we begin with agnosticism and work ourselves into faith gradually. Some seminaries still teach this party line.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

I must respectfully disagree with your view that one is arrogant for questioning a matter that appears to be indeterminate. Wouldn't you agree that the diversity of our opinions brought forth by our collective reasoning is the essence of progressive thought?

I would also issue a caveat to your approach of filtering knowledge through a biased lens before making a judgment on it. This sort of method is certainly not acceptable for many of our other life pursuits. Truth needs no guardian nor protector from our scrutinous analysis. I guess what I mean is that it is still entirely possible to maintain your faith while applying intellectual analysis to the Bible. Some were even called noble for their studious efforts Acts 17:11.

A healthy respect for the Bible is always necessary I suppose, and yours seems to be quite obvious. :thumbsup

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

I am not saying we cannot be intellectual about the Bible. I am just saying abandoning faith in our approach to it is seriously contradictory. We need FAITH and REASON both.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

I must agree to disagree how can they hear with out a preacher one must have the word to find faith. The word does not have to be perfect it has to be sound. Years ago I witnessed to someone about faith my main stepping stone was the word of God, and how historicaly and scientificaly it is sound, so that only leaves faith in God. I was able to lead him to God. There is and allways will be debate on which translations is Gods true word. Well I don't think God would allow his word to become distorted of ther things of importance. Maybe some of the things we think are important to salvation are not so important to God. The message can be found in any bible even the new world translation. I am going out on one of the limbs I could go out on but there is no passage of scripture I have found that says you have to understand the oneness of the God head to be saved. Yet when I was in the ministry the kjv was the only one of authority because I thought and was taught all other translations were put out by trinity scholors and they put forth their slant. Now I use whatever one give me the best understanding of the verse usualy two or three transalations at a time. Along with a bible dictionary.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

The KJV is not the only bible I use. I even use non-Textus Receptus based texts. But when it comes to preservation of Scripture, the Textus Receptus from which it was translated, allowing me to think ANY version from the Textus Receptus, is th eonly strain of texts I have researched and found was handled and used by those of like faith that I have which points to FAITH in the aspect of texts. When people approach the text as the modernists have done as I indicated in my quotes about them, (i.e., they treat the bible like any book without thought of preservation by God, and then work towards reliability from there), they are not using faith at all. And I maintain we cannot reference a written Word of God without faith lest we contradict the entire concept of God and what it takes to relate to Him.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God how can they hear without a preacher? We gain faith from the word of God not the other way around. Therefore the word is and must be strong enough to give us faith. My faith is in God and I got that faith because the word gave me understanding of the love of God. Therefore the inconsitances of variace sciptres concering Things like how many sons Jesse had does not hinder my faith in God or his word. For the bible as a whole has been proven to be historicaly sound and even scientificaly sound. Therefore the subject of having faith in God is relativly easy

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

I agree that faith cometh by hearing... (Romans 10:17, Galatians 3:2), but my personal opinion is that faith is innate in everyone of us, whether or not one chooses to acknowledge it (Romans 12:3).

The Bible is a spiritual book that must be understood spiritually. It is also full of narratives, poems, hymns, proverbs, and historical accounts. With that said, I believe we are rational creatures subject to the natural forces and physical laws designed by our creator. Therefore, it isn't necessary to polarize these two realms of reality when attempting to ascertain what is real and true around us. So by our very nature, we may instinctively reexamine the foundations of our theories and belief systems if something appears erroneous or inconsistent. That's why I started this thread.

Ultimately, God is the only one who can activate our faith and connect us to the supernatural. One only need "hear" or perceive of him and believe. I believe the Bible is that medium for us today. Of course, when Jesus walked the Earth, many miracles were performed by virtue of his physical presence among the people. Their faith became activated by what they heard (Mark 5:27).

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Just as sidenote, Roma 12:3 is not saying every person alive has faith, but the context of every man is "every man that is among you".

Romans 12:3 KJV For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

At any rate, faith "comes" through the word. Hence, only those in the church had faith.

It is more correct to say every man has the potential to have faith. But faith comes when someone gets a living and vibrant word from God, be it through a preacher, the bible or revelation.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Just for clarification, Romans 12:3 doesn't say "as God hath dealt to every man among you the measure of faith." It says, "as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." The context implies just what it says, every man, (the measure, not a measure), so as not to confuse with the gift of faith.

And I'm not sure if you are referring to faith in general or "saving faith." I don't believe its accurate to say that only those comprising the church had faith. Faith in operation was not just limited to the people who heard the gospel.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. I think the context of "every man that is among you" is the intended meaning behind the following phrase "every man". The Bible is simply written in that style.

I find the same thing overlooked when people talk about universal reconciliation, since they do not notice the context of what "all" means in an instance when they read of all being saved. Romans 5, for instance, speaks of the Holy Ghost shed abroad in our hearts, and, speaking of us it says we shall be saved from wrath, and that does not include sinners. That is meant to be understood when we continue reading about why we are saved from wrath when we read about all men becoming righteous by Christ.

In short, the Bible is just written that way.

Anyway, no biggie.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

If I am understanding your position correctly, you are proposing that one only possesses or operates in faith after they have been saved?

Could you please explicate to me the mechanisms that brought the supernatural (miracles/salvation) to those precious souls before Paul penned these words? For example, Mark 5:34, Matthew 8:10, Acts 10:22.

Again, I am not sure I understand your position. Are you implying that Paul meant faith is only imparted after the salvation experience? We must be careful to make sure that our interpretations are consistent with the rest of scripture.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

No, I am saying faith is not in everyone when they are born. God gives it to those whom, after hearing his word, were open to it and through it obtained faith, as our brother indicated. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word. We need faith before we are saved in order to get saved.

Re: Biblical Contradiction?
 

Interesting. So your assumption is that faith resides in some, but not everyone when they are born?

When and how is this faith imparted to the rest of us?