Contradiction or what?

Question

i have red bible and found some of questions i hope sharp and clear anwer please
1-Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)?
2.In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (IChronicles 21:5) ?
3.Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?
(a) One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf Luke 19:3 5). “And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.”
(b) Two - a colt and an *** (Matthew 21:7). “They brought the *** and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.”
sure there are more and more questions.

Answer 1

It's the bible. Of course there's contradictions. That's what I try to tell everybody.

Answer 2

2 Samuel 24:1 doesn't say God incited David to take a count, it's correct at 1 Chronicles 21:1 that it was Satan that did, in 2 Samuel 24:1 it says the anger of God came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying; "Go and take a count of Israel and Judah." It shows someone else incited David to take the count, not God.Concerning the registry of Israel and Judah, there were around 600 years of time between the writings of 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, there could have been difficulties in the registration which not all may have been reported when Gad and Nathan penned 2 Samuel that were present for Ezra when he penned 1 Chronicles, either way, God's anger blazed because of it and exact numbers did not matter as God said it wasn't to be done in the first place. Concerning the *** and the colt, a colt is a young *** and in this case the colt would have been the young one of the *** so they were brought together, but Jesus rode on the colt which no one else had sat. No contradictions, just some where a little more thorough in their writings.

Answer 3

The thing is, God didn't write the Bible directly. There were lots of different writers representing God's words, each with a different purpose, point of view, and targeted audience.

The Bible has been around for a long long time. It's impossible for it to be passed down for over fifteen hundred years without having some errors being printed in it, isn't it?

And also, even if you're not Christian, if you read the Bible, without being biased in the first place, it would make pretty good sense, whether you admit it or not.

Answer 4

1-4. again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah—"Again" carries us back to the former tokens of His wrath in the three years' famine [2Sa 21:1]. God, though He cannot tempt any man (Jas 1:13), is frequently described in Scripture as doing what He merely permits to be done; and so, in this case, He permitted Satan to tempt David. Satan was the active mover, while God only withdrew His supporting grace, and the great tempter prevailed against the king.

The amount here stated, compared with 1Ch 21:5, gives a difference of three hundred thousand. The discrepancy is only apparent, and admits of an easy reconciliation; thus (see 1Ch 27:1-15), there were twelve divisions of generals, who commanded monthly, and whose duty was to keep guard on the royal person, each having a body of troops consisting of twenty-four thousand men, which, together, formed an army of two hundred eighty-eight thousand; and as a separate detachment of twelve thousand was attendant on the twelve princes of the twelve tribes mentioned in the same chapter, so both are equal to three hundred thousand. These were not reckoned in this book, because they were in the actual service of the king as a regular militia. But 1Ch 21:5 joins them to the rest, saying, "all those of Israel were one million, one hundred thousand"; whereas the author of Samuel, who reckons only the eight hundred thousand, does not say, "all those of Israel," but barely "and Israel were," &c. It must also be observed that, exclusive of the troops before mentioned, there was an army of observation on the frontiers of the Philistines' country, composed of thirty thousand men, as appears from 2Sa 6:1; which, it seems, were included in the number of five hundred thousand of the people of Judah by the author of Samuel. But the author of Chronicles, who mentions only four hundred seventy thousand, gives the number of that tribe exclusive of those thirty thousand men, because they were not all of the tribe of Judah, and therefore he does not say, "all those of Judah," as he had said, "all those of Israel," but only, "and those of Judah." Thus both accounts may be reconciled


There are two opinions as to the entry into Jerusalem.
First, lets define COLT and *ss
Colt Definition: An uncastrated male horse, pony, donkey or mule under two years of age.
*ss Definition: Any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus, resembling and closely related to the horses but having a smaller build and longer ears, and including the domesticated donkey.

One being that since Jesus taught at the temple all that week, there are two entries described and not one.

The other is that both animals are sat upon in the single entry ride, one signaficant of Israel, one of the Gentiles (all who are not Jewish). Two of the writers, Mark and Luke, only focus on mentioning that Jesus rode in on the colt (or donkey) as they were more interested in how it fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. (Both words, in their definitions, include that they are donkeys).

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your king coming unto you; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon a donkey, even upon a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zech 9:9).

Answer 5

obviously, two different authors can report the same "story" in two different ways...no contradictions, just variations on a theme..
equally obvious, there are plenty of mutually contradictory "statements" in the bible
and this is a problem ONLY if you are a strict fundamentalist,
a literalistic...
in which case....
the only sharp and clear answer that anyone can give you is:
of all the exegetical approaches that are valid, literal interpretation is NOT one of them

Answer 6

1 - Contradiction
2 - Contradiction
3 - Contradiction

And there's a lot more in the Bible.
.

Answer 7

Wow, you are real smart.
Go back and read it again. Where it says 800,000 "plus" then you have to ""add"" that to the 800,000.

You really worked at making a fool of yourself.

Answer 8

YOU HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES TO SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL.WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE WORD OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT,WHICH WAS INSPIRED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD IN THE PROPHETS OF OLD.THE NEW TESTAMENT ,NOT MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THAT BOOK,OTHER THEN IT WAS INSPIRED THROUGH THE LOVE OF JESUS IN HIS FOLLOWERS ON THAT DAY.

Answer 9

The Languages Of The Bible


1. Were all the books of the Bible originally written in one language?
No, besides Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic were used.

2. What books were written in Hebrew?
Almost all the books of the Old Testament.

3. What books were written in Greek?
In the Old Testament, the Second Book of Machabees and the Book of Wisdom; in the New Testament, all books except the Gospel of St. Matthew.

4. What books were written in Aramaic?
The Gospel of St. Matthew.

5. When were the books of the Old Testament, that were originally written in Hebrew, translated into Greek?
About 220 years before Christ.

6. Why was the translation from Hebrew into Greek made?
Because the Jewish people was dispersed into countries where the Greek tongue predominated, and so it gradually forgot the mother tongue, speaking only Greek. Hence the wish to have the Bible in the Greek tongue.

The Septuagint Version

1. Who were the translators of the Old Testament?
The translators of the Old Testament were Jewish scholars well acquainted with both the Hebrew and the Greek languages.

2. By what name is this translation known?
It is known as the Septuagint Version.

3. Why is it called by that name?
It is called by that name because it was commonly supposed that seventy scholars were employed in the work of translating.

4. Was it known by any other name besides that of the Septuagint?
It was known as the Alexandrian Version to distinguish it from the Hebrew or Palestinian Version.

5. Why was it known as the "Alexandrian Bible?"
Because this translation was made in Alexandria, Egypt, which had the biggest and most vibrant Jewish community outside of Israel.

6. Is there any other difference between the Septuagint and the Palestinian version, besides their language?
Several; The Septuagint contains more books than the Palestinian version and is about three hundred years older. The Palestinian Version originated approximately around 106 A.D. and is different from the Hebrew texts that were the basis for the Septuagint translation.

7. Why does the Septuagint have more books than the Palestinian version?
The translators had a well-founded belief that these books were inspired.

8. Were these added books accepted by the Hebrews?
Yes, but only up until 106 A.D., when the Palestinian, known also as the pharisaic version, became the norm.

9. Was the Septuagint Version much in use in Our Lord's time?
It was used not only by the Greek-speaking Jews but also by the Palestinian Jews; Our Lord and the Apostles frequently quoted it.

10. Did this Greek translation of the Bible help to spread Christianity?
It helped very much, because Gentiles, particularly the Greek philosophers, had read it, and had knowledge of the prophecies referring to the Messiah, with the result that when St. Paul preached to them, many converts were made.


The Vulgate

1. Name again the languages of the Old Testament before the time of Christ.
Hebrew and Greek.

2. In what languages did the Apostles write their Gospels and Epistles?
They wrote their Gospels and Epistles in Greek, except St. Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.

3. How did translations in languages other than Hebrew and Greek come into existence?
As Catholicism spread among peoples of different languages, the demand for the Bible in their various languages grew.

4. Name some of the earlier languages into which the Bible was translated.
Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopian.

5. Was the Bible translated into Latin?
Many translations into Latin were made during the early Catholic centuries.

6. Were these Latin translations satisfactory?
No; many inaccuracies existed, due to errors of the copyists, or errors of translation caused by a poor understanding of the original language.

7. Which of the Latin translations was the best known?
The best known Latin translation was either the "Old African" or the "Old Italian" (Vetus Itala).

8. What was the result of the general dissatisfaction with these Latin translations?
Pope Damasus (Pope from 366 to 384) commissioned St. Jerome to make a new and accurate translation.

9. How did St Jerome go about this work?
He studied carefully the Hebrew and Greek versions, and from these made his new translation.

10. By what name is the Latin translation of St. Jerome known?
It is known as the Vulgate Version. Vulgate means common or vulgar in Latin and it was called so because Latin was the common tongue of the Western Roman Empire.

11. Does the Vulgate have the Church's special approval?
The Council of Trent (Italy) in 1546 declared it to be the only authentic and official version for the Latin Rite: " The same Sacred and Holy Synod ... hereby declares and enacts that the same well-known Old Latin Vulgate edition ... is to be held authentic in public readings, disputations,sermons, and expositions, and that no one shall dare or presume to reject it under any pretense whatsoever." (DZ. 785). It is still the official Catholic Bible today.


The Douay Bible

1. Is there a Catholic translation of the Bible in English?
Yes, it is the translation known as the Douay-Rheims Version. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

2. Why is it called "Douay-Rheims"?
Because it was begun at Rheims and finished at Douay in 1582-1609 by a group of English priests exiled in France.

3. What happened in the sixteenth century to cause the publication of a reliable and accurate translation?
During the Protestant "Deformation" in England many false translations had been made, hence there was great necessity of placing in the hands of Catholics a reliable and accurate translation.

4. Is it true that the Bible was never translated into vernacular languages before the Protestant Deformation?
It is not true; the first translation known in England was the translation into Anglo-Saxon made by Venerable Bede in the eighth century. There is a Gothic translation, made by a certain bishop Ulfilas around 380. The first German translation predates Luther by a good fifty years.

5. Why do Protestants assert that the Bible was never translated before the Deformation?
Through a mixture of ignorance and bad faith.

6. What is the most well known of the false English Protestant translations?
It is the version called the "King James," named after the King who commissioned it in 1604. It was finished in 1611. It is still the most popular of the Protestant Bibles in the English speaking world.

7. What is wrong with the "King James" version?
Like all the Protestant Bibles, it is incomplete and poorly translated. It is a "Pick and choose" version. Such is the real lack of respect of the "Reformers" for the word of God!

Differences Between Catholic And Protestant Versions

1. Does the Catholic version of the Bible differ from Protestant versions?
Yes, in many ways.

2. What is the most noticeable difference?
The most noticeable difference is the absence of seven whole books and parts of two others from the Protestant versions.

3. What books are not contained in the Protestant version?
The Deutero-Canonical Books (See lesson 6).

4. Why are the Deutero-Canonical Books Omitted by Protestants?
Because the Protestant versions of the Bible follow the late Palestinian version of the Bible, which also omits these books (See lesson 8).

5. Name another difference between the Catholic and Protestant versions.
Many important arbitrary changes are found in the texts of the Protestant Bible. According to some scholars, the most popular Protestant Bibles have literally hundreds of mistranslations, additions and omissions.

6. To what do such changes of text lead?
They lead to an entirely different interpretation from the one intended by the Sacred Writer.

7. Give an example of this change of text.
St Paul says, "... Being therefore justified by Faith ..." (Rom. V, 1), and Luther inserted the word "alone" so that the text reads, "Being therefore justified by faith alone."

8. Why were the Reformers so anxious to change texts?
They were anxious to change texts to give force to the particular doctrine of their choice.

9. Should that behavior of the Reformers raise some questions in our mind?
Yes, what did they believe exactly concerning the Bible? Either they did not believe it was the Word of God, and therefore felt free to change it any which way; or if they did believe it was the Word of God, it took a lot of pride and presumption to correct God's word. In either case, they should be called "Deformers" rather than Reformers.

10. Name other differences between the King James version and the Douay version.
The King James version has a preference for words of Anglo-Saxon origin whereas the Douay version freely uses words of Latin origin. The Douay version latinizes the name of some books while the King James gives what they thought at the time to be the Hebrew name. Many Protestant versions other than King James omit the Epistle of St. James.

Source(s):
Latin Vulgate
Douay-Rheims Bible
A Catechism Of The Bible

Answer 10

well one good thing is your reading the bible and God can do anything once the words have been heard,,,,whether you believe it or not

God Bless
LH