BIBLE CHALLENGE

REPLY TO Maddas:
The term Ishmaelites and Midianites refered to the same people. We do the same thing (e. g., Americans
vs. yankees). This was probably used to kept the text from being too repetitious.
MIDIANITES
-Descendants of Midian, son of Abraham by Keturah,
(Gen.25v1-2,4; 1Chr.1v32-33.)
-Called ISHMAELITES,
(Gen.37v25,28; Judg.8v24.)
-Were merchantmen,
(Gen.37v28.)
-Buy Joseph and sell him to Potiphar,
(Gen.37v28,36.)
-Defeated by the Israelites under Phineas;
-five of their kings killed;
-the women taken captive;
-cities burned;
-and much plunder taken,
(Num.31.)
-Defeated by
-Gideon,
(Judg.6-8.)
-Owned multitudes of camels, and dromedaries [speedy, one-humped camels], and large quantities of gold,
(Isa.60v6.)
-A snare [trap] to the Israelites,
(Num.25v16-18.)

The term Horeb refers to the range, Mount Sinai is the specific mountain. (e. g., Himalayas - Mt. Everest).

The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are two different events. The original tables were destroyed when Moses discovered that the Israelites were worshiping the golden calf. Exodus 34 records the events of Moses going to get the second set. If you read the two sets of commandments, they are essentially the same. If you want to know why the minor differences, that is God's prerogative; however, it may be God driving home to the Isrealites exactly who got them out of Egypt. ("Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.") Remember the second set of commandments were written after the incident of the "golden calf".

Matt. 12:34, Matt. 23:33, Matt.23:17 Jesus was refering to the Pharisees, rather toned down from what He could have said, but still very appropriate descriptions. He was making the very same point about the Pharisees that many people on this forum have made concerning certain fundamentalist Christians:

Matthew 23
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dilll and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Matthew 15:26 - the uses of the term "dogs". Damn do people love to pull terms out of context. Look at this in context.

Matthew 15
22. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24. He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25. The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
27. "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
28. Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
The correct translation should be puppies, the diminutive word meaning 'household pets, little dogs'. The image here is the children are feed before the household pets, the pets must wait to be feed. When this incident occurs, Jesus and his disciples have gone to Tyre so that his disciples could get some needed rest. What Jesus is telling the woman that He must take care of His disciples first, and if meeting her need meant going somewhere, then it was going to have to wait. However, the woman being quick witted, realized what the Jesus had implied and says something on the order, "Well before you feed your pets, you do throw crumbs to them while your are feeding your children". Invoking the image of how people would feed tidbits to their waiting pets during mealtimes. She was telling Jesus that she realized that He could accomplish what she needed done without leaving his disciples, that He could heal her daughter from a distance. www.christian-thinktank.com...

[Edited on 25-5-2003 by jagdflieger]

[Edited on 25-5-2003 by jagdflieger]

[Edited on 25-5-2003 by jagdflieger]

I see no reply to me?!?!?!

Originally posted by jagdflieger
www.tektonics.org...[/url]

Well, the apologist makes cases for "some" ostriches. But the problem is, the verse doesn't say "some ostriches" or "the occasional ostrich" or "dominant hen ostriches in communal nests." It's about "ALL ostriches" and is given as an example of ostrich behavior. It's not an apologist or a fellow comforter confronting Job with this. It's Jehovah, who made the ostrich, and supposedly "wrote the book" on ostrich behaviors.

So let's review:

Which leaveth her eggs in the earth -- this would be a perfect description of what is done to the outer ring of "forsaken" eggs, which are the communcal property of the group under the discretion of the major hen.

No, that isn't what the verse says. It doesn't say she leaveth eggs scattered around the nest. It says she makes a nest and then forsakes the nest AND eggs in the nest. "...leaveth HER eggs..." not "kicketh out eggs that do not belong to her and leaveth them in the dust."

and warmeth them in dust -- Note that the word "warmeth" here is not term-specific for incubation -- it simply means "heats"

Oh, we agree on that.

Ostrich incubation actually is for the purpose of cooling the eggs, not warming them.

Apologist apparently isn't that familiar with Africa and birds and incubation. It gets cool in the night. During the night, the ostriches are most definately warming those eggs.

Eggs need to be incubated at a constant temperature in order to hatch. The dust isn't a good temperature regulator, which is why the birds sit on them. The ground isn't an important source in regulating the temperature of the incubating eggs -- the bird is.

This again describes the outer ring of forsaken eggs.

Nope. It doesn't say "outer ring of eggs" or "outermost eggs in the nest" or "eggs she casts out" or anything of the sort. It says her eggs.

And it doesn't talk about her kicking the eggs out. She does this while they're in the nest.

And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. The word "foregetteth" indicates an obliviousness or apathy -- we have seen that the major hen purposely pushes these eggs out and doesn't care about what happens to them; she is preserving her own eggs!

The apologist admits she pushes out the eggs laid by the other hens. However, these are NOT her own eggs she's kicking out. She's kicking out intruders. However, if you'll check your Bible, Jehovah doesn't say "she protecteth her own eggs by driving out the eggs of the intruders." (for this would make her a good mother and a good example rather than a bad example)

So the behaviors described would suit our passages.

Yes, if you rewrite the Bible to say: "And Jehovah said to Job, 'It's kind of like ostrich behavior sometimes -- you know how they build these nests in the sand and sometimes other ostriches come along and lay eggs in them? And how those intruder eggs get kicked out and abandoned when there's too many eggs? "

So you go from "hey it's poetic license!" to a rather weak article based on the behaviors of some (but not all and not a majority) of ostrich behavior.

It's incorrect, and the only way it can be "made" correct is to heavily rewrite and reinterpret the Bible.

[Edited on 26-5-2003 by Byrd]

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Romanized `azab
Pronounced aw-zab'
a primitive root; to loosen, i.e. relinquish, permit, etc.:
KJV--commit self, fail, forsake, fortify, help, leave (destitute, off), refuse, X surely.

It is still not definite that the ostrich abandons their nests from this passage

Actually, I'm surprised you make this claim based on those. "relinquish" is exactly "abandon" -- ot relinquish something is to abandon it to another. Ditto "leave" or the implication of "destitution/desertion" and fail to fortify. The "ostrich abandons her nest" is a consistant translation into English in many, many, many versions by people who know more of the original language than you or I or the apologist knows.

The following post might get me banned, but at this time I do not care because I strongly suspect that my health is beginning to fail and there are other things going on in my life which may limit my ability to do certain things. Most of the criticisms I have seen posted here are basically examples of what is called proof texting, which is lifting passages out of context. The assumption is that because of this one suppossed error, the entire truth of the Bible is now impinged. Just because the way Job, Chapter 39 describes ostriches in a way you do not approve, I am supposed to dismiss the whole Bible as being untrue. I have read other postings on this board written by members who dismiss the Christian Faith just because they do not like the way some of the followers of Christianity behave. Well I am sorrow that some Christians do not met the behavior standards that these people expect. Again they expect everyone to dismiss the claims of Christ, just because some believers misbehave. Other posters rail because what they think God is about does not match what they want God to be. The want an Almighty God to match their expectations, to conform to their wishes. Well that is not the way it is. It all basically boils down to one point. These people do not want to admit to themselves and to God that they have sinned. As Paul wrote, "All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Everyone has sinned and deserves to be sent into damnation. However through the Lord Jesus Christ, God created a plan by which all humanity could be saved and lifted up into glory. It is called the Grace of God, a gift freely given to those who ask. However, it galls some people that they cannot save themselves, they are totally dependent on God for salvation (the Capital "T" of calvinism). We are totally dependent upon God for salvation. No amount of being good, no amount of knowledge, no amount of denying the reality of sin, no amount of finding perceived minute errors in the Bible changes that fact. Here is why my anger raises up at those who sneer, at those who deny, at those who deny the power. What will be given freely to them if they ask, has been denied to me. I am probably the last of my kind; there were never very many of my kind in the first place. But because of who and what I am, the Grace of God which is freely available to the others has been denied to me. All they have to do is admit that they are sinners and ask for God's forgiveness and when the time comes, they will be lifted up into glory. What is freely theirs for the asking, will be denied to me. I have asked a thousand times, and always the answer is the same. Yes my anger burns at these fools. What they can freely have is not my lot. The fools, they throw away heirship to a kingdom in their folly. What I fervently desire and will be denied is theirs as a gift. They can escape the judgement that is to come simply by asking for the Grace of God. What defense can they give when they stand before the White Throne of God? What argument can they make? The answer is simple - none. There is only one verdict in the White Throne Judgement - guilty. And if sometimes I might seem to be harsh to these people, it is because I do not suffer fools gladly. For what they can have simply for the asking (entry in heaven and to be with God for eternity) will not be my fate. What I ardently desire and cannot have, they can have but throw away.

What will be given freely to them if they ask, has been denied to me

?

The assumption is that because of this one suppossed error, the entire truth of the Bible is now impinged

The bible is supposed to be Truth, no?
So one lie, while it doesn't make the whole book lies, does make the whole book suspect.

Basically, if one fact is found to be false, then all the rest must be checked and verified as true, else they might be false, too.

[Edited on 26-5-2003 by quango]

I honestly hope your health improves Jag. Whilst I dont think your post will get you banned, I feel the anger you had when you began to type it. (not knowing how it might turn.). To be honest with you, I have enjoyed the Thread. Though I had no doubt that you would be able to prove your points, I still posted my challenges. One takes on a massive task, when they try either to prove or disprove the bible. Many have gone the way of the latter and ended up the former. The bible has only been a part of my life for about two years now and I'm only 27. I wish only to test my views against others, not maliciously, albiet at times I trip stumble and occasionally fall flat on my face. I need , and I hope others will understand. I test my views with you to increase my knowledge and wisdom to make the right choices. Being a christian, or for that a follower of any faith is not easy, especially today. To me society is ripe with churches, religions, sects, cults, "christian groups" etc, etc. I apologise if you feel that I have hurt or dissappointed you in anyway, those were not my intentions. Please understand that I do take the time to read the opinions of others, and I do give them deep consideration. My views, in many instances have changed. I'm only a learner, hard headed, but still a learner.

Mark 10:18
So Jesus said to him, �Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is God.

- John 14:28
You have heard me say to you, �I am going away and coming back to you� If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, �I am going to the Father, For My Father is Greater than I

- John 8:28
Then Jesus said to them, �when you lift up the son of man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My father taught Me, I speak these things.

John 5:37
And the father himself, who sent me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, no seen his form.

Matthew 7:21
�not everyone who says to me, Lord� Shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.22 Many will say to me in that day, lord, lord have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in Your name?23 And then I will declare to them, �I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!�

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of him who sent me
John 7:16
Jesus answered them and said, �My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me

John 13:16
Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know theses things, blesses are you if you do them

Matthew 13:57
So they were offended at him. But Jesus said to them, �A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house�

It might be easier for you to accept Christ, read the Book with the help of the Holy Spirit, understand the whole and then the single verses lifted out of a chapter will make sense, rather than to ask someone to build all that is necessary around a simple verse to satisfy your superficial curiosity. I'm not trying to say you are superficial or anything to that sense, Mr. Also, I'm just saying that there is more to it than that. The only thing lifting a sentence out of context does is to give someone sho is trying to discredit a book cheap and flimsy ammunition, nothing more.

Originally posted by Java
It might be easier for you to accept Christ, read the Book with the help of the Holy Spirit, understand the whole and then the single verses lifted out of a chapter will make sense, rather than to ask someone to build all that is necessary around a simple verse to satisfy your superficial curiosity. I'm not trying to say you are superficial or anything to that sense, Mr. Also, I'm just saying that there is more to it than that. The only thing lifting a sentence out of context does is to give someone sho is trying to discredit a book cheap and flimsy ammunition, nothing more.

I do and have read the book unlike most Christians. Accept Christ as what?!?!?! The man lived 2000 years ago. Plus those verses are as clear as day. I have read many parts of the bible and it seems to many that's it's is many Christians that take the verses that they want to know out of context.

I know the meaning behind the verses. And I�m not trying to satisfy superficial curiosity. Do you know the history about your religion. It seems that you don't.

I know that God guides me in all endeavors. And at this moment in my life I am looking for Truth and I honestly feel that God is showing me the Truth that only a mere mortal can perceive.

You say except "Christ". Do you know where the name "Christ" came from?!?!? Do you know where the name "Jesus" came from. Neither of these title was this mans name. So how are you going to accept some one with out knowing there name.

"Jesus" Was a great man I�m not denying that. I just know in my heart that GOD the Most High creator of all would not lower himself by putting his consciousness into a being that lived on a planet in an isolated solar system. I think it is our arrogance and need to believe in something that has made some gravitate toward believing that �Jesus� is God. Rome also had a lot to do with this too.


P.S Your right on one thing though it is easier to accept "Christ". That way you don't have to take responsibility for your actions

[Edited on 26-5-2003 by abstract_alao]

You really have to decide what you believe, Jag. I suggest you do read the WHOLE Bible (as I have done and as most of the athiests and agnostics here have done) rather than just read "the good parts."

Do you believe it's the "whole and inerrant" word of God? If so, then there's a lot of errors there you can't explain.

Do you believe its science and mythology are consistant with those times -- and old hat now that we have better instruments to measure with and a better understanding of the universe?

Do you believe the laws in the Old Testament apply? (if so you'd better start explaining why you aren't sacrificing animals, because Jesus never said "okay... not stop sacrificing animals. Nor did anyone else."

Do you believe the Old Testament is simply Jewish legend and only the New Testament counts? If so, read it carefully because there are a number of failed prophecies and inconsistancies in it.

What *do* you believe?

Do you believe that God sends the souls of babies to hell (as it says in the Old Testament and never contradicts in the New Testament?)

Do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls (which contain books that have some details of Jesus' life) are fictional?

Do you believe the "300 prophecies that prove Jesus was the Messiah"? Do you believe them even though most of them were "discovered" in the last 50 years? Do you believe them even though they don't match the Jewish description of the Messiah from the Old Testament and the rabbinical commentaries?

Are you simply someone who believes what they are told? If not, then you need to be able to address (with good scholarly knowledge and not fluffiness from some Biblical Literalist site) the inconsistancies and problems listed on www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

(and yes, I know that some of them on SAB are actually bad examples or ones that the site's author misinterprets. I can identify them when I see them, too -- so I don't go along with everything.)

If you intend to argue apologetics, the FIRST thing you need is... no, not a Bible and the teachings of your heart and prayers to guide you... a good understanding of Jewish history and culture, and then an understanding of what the JEWS say is in the Old Testament. Then you need to research why the books were put in the Bible, when they were put there, what else was considered, what new books have been considered, why something should be considered canonical or not....

And you should have a smattering of knowledge about other religions and a course in logic.

...and then you'll be ready to set your lance and take on Apologetics.




Yes (because I'm the age of your parents) I've done a lot of that. I also have a heavy background in the sciences. Debaters with this sort of experience are NOT the ones that a novice should take on.

Go, read, study, learn more about your religion. "Defending the Bible" is easy only when you're on a board where people don't reason well. Don't try it with a bunch of scientists, mathemeticians, logicians, philosphers, psychology students, or English professors.

From abstract_alao (and Illmatic67)
II Samuel 24
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
I Chronicles 21
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

God or satan?

A damn good question not easily dealt with. Here is an apparent contradiction in Bible narrative. This has to do with dual agency which occurs often in the Bible. A good example is the Book of Job. God brags about Job and Satan accuses Job of honoring God simply for materialistic gain. God allows Satan to ruin Job. When Job does not turn against God, God confronts Satan with "you incited me against him to ruin him." In other words, Satan was the "ruiner" but God was also a "ruiner". See
www.christian-thinktank.com...
for additional discussion. The only problem here is that there is really no good answer to quiet the critic. The believer is satisified, the non-believer simply will not accept because he doesn't believe in either Satan or God. Futhermore after the critic hears about the story of Job, he will normally take umbrage at the idea that God unfairly allowed Satan to ruin Job. Of course the critic is unmindful of the fact that God restored Job and Job's faith has gained him a special place in eternity.

I am also surfing the internet for good responses to some of the other questions and for documentation of some of the tidbits I have picked up over the years. (In one the tells, stone tablets have been found which mentions Abram, a camel dealer; also tablets have been found concerning dealings with Sodom and Gomorrah; in another tell, tablets have been found seeking military aid from Pharoah to combat "Habisu" who were rampaging through the country side.)

Many critics contend that the Bible advocates the concept of a flat earth. What I have seen is not unequivocal evidence. Find a non-Biblical source (a Hebrew document) that proves that the Hebrews believed that the earth was flat.

Yes (because I'm the age of your parents) I've done a lot of that. I also have a heavy background in the sciences. Debaters with this sort of experience are NOT the ones that a novice should take on.

Go, read, study, learn more about your religion. "Defending the Bible" is easy only when you're on a board where people don't reason well. Don't try it with a bunch of scientists, mathemeticians, logicians, philosphers, psychology students, or English professors.

I see that you are playing the old "credentials" game with me. Most likely you have not read my posts elsewhere. Over the years, I have known my share of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and a whole lot of software types. A goodly portion of those people were Christian and did not find Christian faith unscientific. As for age, I believe that abstract_alao and Illmatic67 are quite young men, but in truth I have a lot more respect for them than for certain other members of this forum who are older. In fact, I would be proud to call these young men my friends if we were to meet face to face. Their questions are real questions. These two young men and I will disagree, but at least we would respect each other. Indeed, I do not know all, but how much do you need to know to believe. I have my reasons for believing based on life expriences which few others would comprehend. Illmatic67, abstract_alao, and maddas kept the questions coming, your questions and points have lead me to places I have never been. Sometimes the quest for truth generates more truth than the answer to the original question.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
I see that you are playing the old "credentials" game with me. Most likely you have not read my posts elsewhere. Over the years, I have known my share of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and a whole lot of software types. A goodly portion of those people were Christian and did not find Christian faith unscientific.

Wouldn't argue with that. I know a number of these, myself. Very few are Biblical literalists. Those who are Biblical literalists are usually not working geologists, physicists, astronomers, or biologists.

Their questions are real questions.

And so are mine. You asked for proofs that the Bible contains errors. I supplied you with one and have a whole stack of other ones lined up. Rather than evading your responses, I continued to debate the point as you had requested, with scholarly followup and good points I didn't drop them for other arguments because the issue was not resolved.

Remember? You said you wanted these "proofs" as tightly constructed as any legal argument.

Illmatic67, abstract_alao, and maddas kept the questions coming, your questions and points have lead me to places I have never been. Sometimes the quest for truth generates more truth than the answer to the original question.

And some have complained that you simply ignored their points.

Your original point was that you believed the Bible to NOT have scientific or historical or philosophical contradictions. You wanted well-reasoned arguments that had to be solid and had to be proveable.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

If you had wanted "questions that make you think about the Bible," then you should have asked about those. We can easily supply those. I have a nice long list of "points to ponder about the Bible."

If you'd prefer those, I'll be happy to start listing.

Reply to Maddas:
Matthew 10:35 - This passage ties in with 10:34 where the term "a sword" is the message of repentance. (Remember the term the word of God is a "two edge sword".) The meaning here is that people will turn against those who believe.
www.tektonics.org...
Matthew 12:46-12:50
No Jesus did not disown His family. These verses just show that commitment to God takes precedence over commitment to family.
www.christian-thinktank.com...
Matthew 21:18-21:19
This is a parable and an allusion to Isreal. Jesus's acceptance as Messiah would have ushered in the Messianic age. Checking the fig tree for fruit out of season was a signal: Had he found fruit (which normally came in after the leaves), it would have been a sign of the coming Messianic Kingdom.
www.//tektonics.org/zapfigtree.html
Matthew 25:30
Comes from a set a passages dealing with stewardship. Those who use what God has given them to do His work on earth will receive rewards in Heaven (there will be rewards above and beyond salvation). However the unbeliever will be "cast out". This does bring up the reality of Hell. The problem is that there will be those who do not want to be with God. They could stand before God and God could ask, "In or Out".
They would reply "Out".
www.christian-thinktank.com...
Mark 5:13
Who is more important? The man or the pigs? I am suprised that critics don't question this passage because of "pigs". This is in the middle of Kosher country. If the owner of that herd was basing his entire livihood on pigs, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. This brings up another contention of critics: that the dumb Hebrews were so stupid that they didn't know that these people were insane, insanity was explained by possession of demons. Well there are indicators, that they knew the difference. Howver let us accept the critics objection, these people were insane. Well in that case, Jesus knew the difference but did not have the time or inclination to explain the difference. Remember the Gospels were to be a written record of His ministry. If the Gospel narratives were to explain such things as insanity in an attempt to correct misconceptions of medicine, cosmology, etc. , then rather than a 10 to 20 page document, you would have a 1000 to 2000 page document. Also interesting point if this was the case, Jesus did something that even modern medicine can not do, He cured insanity without extensive medical treatment, hospitalization, and long term drug therapy.

Additional commentary for Mark 5:1
www.tektonics.org...

Maddas (on Camels)
Evidence now points to the view that domesticated camels were rare but not unknown ("earliest known period of two-humped camel domestication in the third millenium B.C." [HI:TCAW:177, 183] ")
www.christian-thinktank.com...
Also the contention that the Egyptians left behind the tiniest detail of their lives is not exactly true. For in all their records, I am aware of any depictation of how any of their structures (especially the pyramids) were built.

Reply to abstract_alao (from Illmatic67)
II Samuel 24:13
I Chronicles 21:11
Three years or seven?
Indeed a copyist error (three years is probably correct)

II Samuel 10
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of Syrians
I Chronicles 19
But the Syrians fled before Israel: and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men with fought in chariots.
700 or 7,000?
Indeed a copyist error (7000 is probably correct)

II Chronicles 9
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots
I Kings 4
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots
4,000 or 40,000?
Indeed a copyist error (4000 is probably correct)

II Chronicles 36
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem
II Kings 24
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months.

"18 is more likely, and is supported by one Hebrew mss., some LXX mss., and Syriac mss. Gleason Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties , 214-5) states: "A numerical system generally in use during the fifth century BC (when Chronicles was probably composed --
very likely under Ezra's supervision) features a hoizontal stroke ending in a hook at its right end as the sign for "ten"; two of them would make the number "20". The digits under ten would be indicated by rows of little vertical strokes, generally in groups of three. Thus, what was originally written over one or more of these groups of short vertical strokes (in this case, eight strokes) would appear as a mere `eight' instead of `eighteen'". "
Foe more on copyist errors:
www.tektonics.org...
www.tektonics.org...

However these are not the glaring errors and contradictions that so many Bible critics leads one to believe exist. It strange that these same critics do not mention copyist errors it Tacitus or Josephus. The implication is clear - because there are copyist errors in the Bible (mainly dealing with numbers), that we should dismiss the Bible as being a hopeless pack of lies. Using the same logic, we then should dismiss both Tacitus and Josephus.

The two genealogies of Jesus - It is generally accepted (but not unanimously) that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. A full discussion of the genealogy of Jesus would be very extensive (The fellowship I once attended did a teaching on the genealogy of Jesus - the teaching covered an one hour period. When it was complete, the teacher apologized for only covering the fundamentals of Jesus's genealogy.) However each of the Gospels were written for a different audience (Matthew and Luke were directed towards Jews, Mark was directed towards Romans, and John was directed towards Greeks). The issue of Jesus's Davidic blood was never raised by his enemies. The first century Jews for which Matthew and Luke were written were closer to the records than we are today (apparently genealogical records existed then which were subsquently destroyed). Futhermore since genealogy was an important issue to first century Jews, it seems reasonable that both Matthew and Luke are correct. My contention is that the first century Jews did not dispute the two genealogies, why should we.
www.christian-thinktank.com...