Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 05-12-2005, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

In order to be heir to the throne of David, only the patrilineage mattered. If Jesus wasn't descended from David through his father then he wasn't the Messiah.

Umm, whilst this may be your opinion, the prophecies concerning the messiah in the Hebrew bible make no mention whatsoever that this is the case.

The prophecies in the HB merely say he will be a descendent of David and Solomon

gnojek · 05-12-2005, 02:41 PM

The contradiction is pretty plain and simple.

It is between 1 Kings 16 and 2 Chrnicles 16.

Quote:

1 Kings 16

1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu son of Hanani against Baasha: 2 "I lifted you up from the dust and made you leader of my people Israel, but you walked in the ways of Jeroboam and caused my people Israel to sin and to provoke me to anger by their sins. 3 So I am about to consume Baasha and his house, and I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat. 4 Dogs will eat those belonging to Baasha who die in the city, and the birds of the air will feed on those who die in the country."

5 As for the other events of Baasha's reign, what he did and his achievements, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? 6 Baasha rested with his fathers and was buried in Tirzah. And Elah his son succeeded him as king.

7 Moreover, the word of the LORD came through the prophet Jehu son of Hanani to Baasha and his house, because of all the evil he had done in the eyes of the LORD , provoking him to anger by the things he did, and becoming like the house of Jeroboam-and also because he destroyed it.

8 In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah son of Baasha became king of Israel, and he reigned in Tirzah two years.

9 Zimri, one of his officials, who had command of half his chariots, plotted against him. Elah was in Tirzah at the time, getting drunk in the home of Arza, the man in charge of the palace at Tirzah. 10 Zimri came in, struck him down and killed him in the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah. Then he succeeded him as king.

11 As soon as he began to reign and was seated on the throne, he killed off Baasha's whole family. He did not spare a single male, whether relative or friend. 12 So Zimri destroyed the whole family of Baasha, in accordance with the word of the LORD spoken against Baasha through the prophet Jehu- 13 because of all the sins Baasha and his son Elah had committed and had caused Israel to commit, so that they provoked the LORD , the God of Israel, to anger by their worthless idols.

14 As for the other events of Elah's reign, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?

Here Elam takes over the throne of his father Baasha in the 26th year of Asa's reign. Then two years later he is overthrown and Baasha's whole family is killed (and presumably so is Baasha).

Quote:

2 Chronicles 16

1 In the thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and fortified Ramah to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah.

2 Asa then took the silver and gold out of the treasuries of the LORD's temple and of his own palace and sent it to Ben-Hadad king of Aram, who was ruling in Damascus. 3 "Let there be a treaty between me and you," he said, "as there was between my father and your father. See, I am sending you silver and gold. Now break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel so he will withdraw from me."

How could Baasha be killed or at least NOT be the king of Israel after the 27th year of Asa's reign and also be King of Israel in the 36th year?

This is an obvious contradiction.

I brought this up on another board and got these responses:

Quote:

Here are my thoughts. See the 2 books of kings were written from Israel's perspective....and the book of Chronicle's was written from Judah's perspective, because after the death of Solomon Israel and Judah had split. Now you definitely have something in the nature of a contradiction. I don't claim to be a Bible scholar, but this may be a genuine screw up by the Bible company and translators those of who have re-written from Greek/Hebre to Latin to Old English to New English to the New International Version....there is surely some room for error.....in now ways am I trying to justify simply trying to shed some light....we could also be missing more information.....since they're both a decade a part...we may assumer maybe there was some type of calendar difference back then between Judah or Israel for whatever reason.....my belief is that it just may be some guy accidently hit 3 instead of 2 or vice versa....of course none of these are real answers and I will try to find one......or maybe others will have a legiitmate answer......

Quote:

hmmmm, could be that Baasha was not King at the 36th year...It says Baasha king of Israel maybe as a reference but maybe he was not actually the King. Maybe Baasha was still in charge of building it though. I am not Bibilical scholar but I will find out for ya
Reply With Quote

Quote:

The 36th year of Asa was the TOTAL amount of years he CO-OCCUPIED as king with his father. (9 years dual occupancy)

This means that the 27th year of Asa means the same as the 36th year of Asa. Isn't it obvious? :huh:

Quote:

I am researching this issue completely before I (possibly) add anymore confusion.
The complexity arises over the fact that the Authorized Version INTERWEAVES its translation of these thorny chronology issues with BOTH the Masoretic AND Septuagint chronology systems.
According to my sources BOTH systems are correct when understood as to HOW they operate.
The KJV translators spliced both systems into their renderings and have created this seemingly obvious contradiction.
Preliminarily, I have ascertained that Asa co-occupied the monarchy 3 years with his father and 3 years with his son when his feet were diseased at the end of his reign. [source: LXX].
The 2Chronicles 16 passage does not account for these facts.
Again, we have two systems arbitrarily spliced into the translation = big mess.
I am currently reading a massive explanation of this issue and it is complicated.

I'm not sure what the Authorized Version could be.
I think he meant Baasha and not Asa.
At least he admits that it's an obvious contradiction.

Agemegos · 05-13-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnojek

I'm not sure what the Authorized Version could be.

It is the version of the Bible that Americans call the "King James Bible" or "King James Version".

ImmortalTechnique · 05-14-2005, 03:56 PM

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."

not a contradiction, but definitely a mistake by jesus

and not a small one... since the seed doesn't really die... it would imply (if jesus really is the omniscient creator) that he didn't really die either and kind of mess up the idea of subsitutionary sacrifice

Tubby Lardmore · 05-14-2005, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmortalTechnique

... but if it die...

But see here, in the original Aramaic, the word that got translated as 'die' really meant: hydrolyzed its carbohydrate and protein content, began chromosome division, formed a root ball, and formed a stem which sought out the surface of the soil.

A. Uiet bhor · 05-14-2005, 07:05 PM

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/Swine.htm

Contains an explanation of the "errors" in the swine miracle, that shows the scene was an anti-Semitic satire, showing that the hacks who wrote the gospels where not above re-writing history at the expense of the group they came to hate. Many of the so-called “contradictions�? in the bible are down to an incomplete picture, or a lack of understanding regarding the individual writer’s agenda. When compared to contemporary work, that served as the sources for the plagiarising inventors of Jesus, you see what was going on in their heads, (Mathew is very easy to read, as is Luke). There are many inspirations or models that where adapted (badly in the case of the dire Jesus parables) or carefully so as to chime with peoples knowledge of the characters and era they set their stories in. When dissected the gospels start to make sense, same goes for the OT, compiled when the NT was written, and for similer motives. Research is needed, and the mystery fades away, takes awhile though.

ImmortalTechnique · 05-14-2005, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubby Lardmore

But see here, in the original Aramaic, the word that got translated as 'die' really meant: hydrolyzed its carbohydrate and protein content, began chromosome division, formed a root ball, and formed a stem which sought out the surface of the soil.

well that clears that up then... GO JESUS! :notworthy

Apocolips · 05-15-2005, 04:10 AM

"The world will cometh to an end when the Cubs will the World Series."

"The Cubs will never win a World Series."

badger3k · 05-15-2005, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by senor boogie woogie

"The world will cometh to an end when the Cubs will the World Series."

"The Cubs will never win a World Series."

The Cubs won in 1907 and 1908. So the world did end? That explains the nutcases, then.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wsmenu.shtml

Loomis · 05-15-2005, 12:24 PM

I bet we’ve all heard this one before:

Quote:

Does God repent?

Num.23:19
"God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent."

Vs.

Ex.32:14
"And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

This actually isn’t a contradiction. It is two different gods!

The god at Numbers 23:19 is El.

The god at Exodus 32:14 is Yahweh.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2005, 03:56 PM	#134
ImmortalTechnique Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 85	"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." not a contradiction, but definitely a mistake by jesus and not a small one... since the seed doesn't really die... it would imply (if jesus really is the omniscient creator) that he didn't really die either and kind of mess up the idea of subsitutionary sacrifice

05-14-2005, 07:05 PM	#136
A. Uiet bhor Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: england Posts: 67	http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/Swine.htm Contains an explanation of the "errors" in the swine miracle, that shows the scene was an anti-Semitic satire, showing that the hacks who wrote the gospels where not above re-writing history at the expense of the group they came to hate. Many of the so-called “contradictions�? in the bible are down to an incomplete picture, or a lack of understanding regarding the individual writer’s agenda. When compared to contemporary work, that served as the sources for the plagiarising inventors of Jesus, you see what was going on in their heads, (Mathew is very easy to read, as is Luke). There are many inspirations or models that where adapted (badly in the case of the dire Jesus parables) or carefully so as to chime with peoples knowledge of the characters and era they set their stories in. When dissected the gospels start to make sense, same goes for the OT, compiled when the NT was written, and for similer motives. Research is needed, and the mystery fades away, takes awhile though.

05-15-2005, 04:10 AM	#138
Apocolips Banned Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Hangzhou, China Posts: 2,402	"The world will cometh to an end when the Cubs will the World Series." "The Cubs will never win a World Series."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.