Is the Bible inerrant? Does it contradict itself?

[Guest Xan]

Interesting note: famines in that region typically last seven years with the middle three being the worst- perhaps that accounts for the descrepancy?

[George]

Source - 101 Cleared Up Contradictions of the Bible

2 Samuel 24:13 mentions that there will be seven years of famine whereas 1 Chronicles 21:12 mentions only three.

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent, and misunderstood the wording)

There are two ways to look at this. The first is to assume that the author of 1 Chronicles emphasized the three-year period in which the famine was to be most intense, whereas the author of 2 Samuel includes the two years prior to and after this period, during which the famine worsened and lessened respectively.

Another solution can be noticed by observing the usage of words in each passage. When you compare the two passages you will note that the wording is significantly different in 1 Chronicles 21 from that found in a 2 Samuel 24. In 2 Samuel 24:13 the question is "shell seven years of famine come to you?" In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an alternative imperative, "take for yourself either three years of famine..." From this we may reasonably conclude that 2 Samuel records the first approach of the prophet Gad to David, in which the alternative prospect was seven years; whereas the Chronicles account gives us the second and final approach of Nathan to the King, in which the Lord (doubtless in response to David's earnest entreaty in private prayer) reduced the severity of that grim alternative to three years rather than an entire span of seven. As it turned out, however, David opted for God's third preference, and thereby received three days of severe pestilence, resulting in the deaths of 70,000 men in Israel.

(Archer 1982:189-190 and Light of Life II 1992:190)

Hope this helps,

With much agape love,

George

[Guest EPHRIAM777]

Quote: from Prime Number on 1:44 am on Jan. 27, 2002

[boblandis]

Prime,

  The only time the Bible contridicts itself is when scripture is taken out of context from the thought or lesson it was trying to teach.

[angels4u]

Do you believe the Bible or do you add to it?

[Guest Jipsah]

Well I guess I should ask WHICH Bible are you referring to..?<p>The Septuigent is what Jesus read from..! Maybe the Gutenberg..? Or the KJV..? Or the Roman Catholic Bible..or Tindales Bible..? Or the others way too numerous to mention..?

Do you reckon that there are substantive differences in those different versions?

[Guest Xan]

[For Him Alone]

Jipsah you Quacked me up...  

[Prime Number]

   

Prime#

[Guest Majestic]

The problem with Biblical interpretation by skeptics is that they back it into a corner and shut the door on any possibility of truth, whatsoever.

Like someone before said, if every Gospel was identical and every single word matched up exactly the same, then skeptics would be hollering: "COPY!!!".  We would be on this thread arguing over how obviously evident it is that Mark did nothing but copy Matthew, and Luke did nothing but copy Mark, and...

You get the point, I hope.

I've yet to come upon a single contradiction in the Bible that held up under investigation into its context, and I'm constantly amazed by skeptics who so easily like to shout "contradiction!" when a simple context-check would clear up every objection to the passage in question.