From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!CAD:tektronix!tekid!davide
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: Part 1 of response to Micheal Cranford
Article-I.D.: tekid.1023
Posted: Tue Mar 15 19:17:23 1983
Received: Wed Mar 23 01:59:48 1983


  I would like to thank Micheal Cranford for responding to my request
for a list of Biblical contradictions.  I plan to respond to all of
them, but it will take a while.

  First, a comment about Biblical interpretation.  Read the entire
chapter, and probably the two surrounding ones also, to get the
context of the action.  If there are several accounts of one event,
as in the case below, look at all of them carefully.  See who is
talking.  Why is the account being given?  Etc...

  Also, the King James Version was done by very dedicated, talented
men.  The manuscripts they were working with, however, were not the
best, although they were convinced at the time that they were.  I
recommend using the New American Standard Bible.  It is one of the
most accurate versions we have available.  I do not choose it because
it supports my doctrinal stand, but because it is an excellent
translation in all respects.  (I do not include this paragraph as a
preface for weaseling my way out of any contradictions.  I would rather
use the most reliable version I have access to for a basis of
discussion.  I would prefer to discuss the issues in the original
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but I do not speak or read these languages.)
In addition, the English language has changed somewhat since the KJV was
done.

  Micheal, you list contradictions about the death of Saul, as copied
below.

      Another funny fable is about the death of Saul. Saul committed
    suicide by falling on his own sword (1 Samuel 31:4..6). Then Saul
    talks an Amalekite into killing him (2 Samuel 1:8..19). Somewhat
    later, Saul gets killed by the Philistines in Gilboa (2 Samuel 21
    :12). Later yet, Saul kills himself (again ?) by falling on his
    own sword (1 Chronicles 10:4). But the author of Chronicles gives
    the final credit to God (1 Chronicles 10:13..14 "... therefore he
    (God) slew him ...). It would seem that Saul tried to fall on his
    own sword, but botched the job. Thus God, disguised as a Amalekite
    impersonating a Philistine visiting Gilboa, had to finish him off.

  I respond to this one first, because it was one of the most
disturbing things I saw at first glance.  If it is as you account,
then the Bible does indeed contradict itself here.  Let's look at it.

  The accounts of the death of Saul are as follows:
    
    1 Samuel 31:4-6
    1 Chronicles 10:4   These two parallel accounts recount exactly
			the same event, even with the same details.
			Saul's armor bearer would not kill him, so
			Saul did it himself by falling on his sword.
			No problem here.  Samuel/Kings and Chronicles
			give parallel accounts of many events.

    2 Samuel 21:12      The Philistines defeated Saul in battle.  In
			1 Samuel 31:3, Saul is seriously wounded by
			the Philistines.  He has been defeated, and
			if he doesn't kill himself, they will.  He
			has no way out.  I don't have a KJV here, but
			the reading in the NASB is that they "struck
			down Saul".  Where is the problem here?

    1 Chronicles 10:13,14  I see no problem with giving God credit
			for the death of Saul.  God is mentioned many
			times in the Bible as using individual people
			and entire nations to accomplish his desires.

    2 Samuel 1:2-16     This is an account by an Amalekite.  He is
			telling the story, and he is lying to gain
			the favor of David.  After all, Saul was David's
			biggest enemy.  He had tried to kill David many
			times.  The Amalekite thought that telling this
			account of Saul's death would put him in good
			standing with David.  The Amalekite was certainly
			quite surprised when David had him killed for
			killing Saul, "the LORD's anointed".

  You seem to be implying that the Bible is chronological from cover to
cover.  This is apparently a partial basis of the contradictions mentioned.
As I mentioned above, there are parallel accounts of many events in the
Bible.  In two of the passages you cite, a reference is being made to an
event that happened in the past, so of course the account must appear
after the event happened.

  Micheal, I plan to respond to all of your points, but it will take me
a while.  There are a lot of them.  I welcome this opportunity to respond
to your statements.


     David Eby
     Tektronix, Instrument Division
     {ucbvax,cbosg,decvax,pur-ee,chico,harpo,ihnss}!tektronix!tekid!davide