Contradictions in the Bible on Small Historical Details

  • Thread starter Thread starter chessnerd321
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chessnerd321

Guest
How are we to deal with small, yet very clear contradictions in the Bible such as this one:

2 Samuel 24:23-24
23 Your Majesty, Araunah gives all this to the king.” Araunah also said to him, “May the Lord your God accept you.” 24 But the king replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the Lord my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.” So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen and paid fifty shekels of silver for them.
Click to expand...
Compared with 1 Chronicals 21:23-25
23 Araunah said to David, “Take it! Let my lord the king do whatever pleases him. Look, I will give the oxen for the burnt offerings, the threshing sledges for the wood, and the wheat for the grain offering. I will give all this.” 24 But King David replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the Lord what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt offering that costs me nothing.” 25 So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels of gold for the site.
Click to expand...
It’s beyond obvious that the author here is speaking historically, not metaphorically. It’s also obvious that we’re talking about the exact same events…so how much did King David pay? Of course scripture is infallible, but it looks like there’s some sort of mistake here. Help me sort it out.
 
Last edited:
Haydock’s commentary on 1 Chronicles (1 Paralipomenon) 21:25 says:
Ver. 25. Six hundred sicles, &c. This was the price of the whole place on which the temple was afterwards built: but the price of the oxen was fifty sicles of silver, 2 Kings xxiv. 24. (Challoner) — Or the fifty sicles were given for the threshing-floor alone. (Calmet) (Du Hamel)
Click to expand...
Haydock’s commentary on 2 Samuel (2 Kings) 24:24 says:
Ver. 24. Free-cost, or given gratis. This shews that subjects have property, otherwise they could only yield what was due to the king, as his own. (Worthington) — Silver. Septuagint, “for the silver of fifty sicles.” (Haydock) — Bochart explains for the money of 50 sicles of gold, which make 600 sicles of silver. Gold was formerly as twelve to one, compared with silver. (Plato in Hipparcho.) — But the best method of reconciling this passage with 1 Paralipomenon is to say, that David gave the 50 sicles for the oxen and floor, and afterwards purchased the whole piece of ground for 600 (Calmet) sicles of gold, (or 902 l. 5 s. sterling.; Haydock) being informed that the temple was to be erected there, (Calmet) where Isaac had formerly been brought to be sacrificed. (Menochius) — We might also make a colon, or pause, at floor, as if its price were specified elsewhere, and the fifty sicles were given for the oxen. (Du Hamel; Menochius) — The sum amounts to only about 1 l. 14 s. (Haydock)
Click to expand...
 
So you think David and this man had the exact same quabble over whether or not Kind David had to pay on two different occasions?
 
Last edited:
Sometimes apparent contradictions boil down to reproduction and errant copying of scripture before the printing press…The most classic example is the contradiction of who killed Goliath…was it David, or was it Elhanan?

At the end of the day, is it the difference between taking scripture “literally” and the “literal sense” of scripture? See CCC about 110-117 (if I remember correctly).
 
I actually do realize that. The point is that both of these books are written in roughly the same genre, that is a book of history. How would it be a choice of genre to lie about how much something costed? That makes absolutely zero sense.
 
If you ask Bob what it cost, he tells you how much the land cost.

If you ask Joe, he tells you about how much it cost to buy the farm building (the threshing floor) and the farm equipment (the team).

It is the kind of info from different sources and viewpoints that historians love. So it is not a contradiction at all.

Given the jubilee year structure, it was possible to have land sales really act as long leases, with movable property being the only thing that truly changed hands. The point of listing both transactions seems to be about establishing that David did not just buy the farm stuff, but that he actually bought the land. No takebacks.
 
Last edited:
There are several small details that are different between the accounts of King David’s life in the two books I already mentioned. It’s too late for me to dig them up now, however.

I suppose I wasn’t very clear with my question. Is it really that every tiny detail of the Bible must be true or is there some allowance for irrelevant mistakes. Someone said yes. But judging by most everyone’s responses and my own gut reaction, no, we must resolve even the smallest contradiction if the Bible is infallible.
 
chessnerd321 said:
I suppose I wasn’t very clear with my question. Is it really that every tiny detail of the Bible must be true or is there some allowance for irrelevant mistakes. Someone said yes. But judging by most everyone’s responses and my own gut reaction, no, we must resolve even the smallest contradiction if the Bible is infallible.
Click to expand...
My former Bible Study teacher (theologian) said that there are errors in the Bible. A non- denominational church I’ve been interested in believe that the Bible is inerrant.
Anybody want to chime in?
 
David was paying for it in order that the claim of the Israelites would be clear and without dispute. If that man had given him the threshing floor instead of selling it then at a later date his heirs could lay claim to the Temple and say that it was taken by extortion.
 
Please tell me what is then and if possible cite the ccc. Just saying I’m wrong doesn’t help thanks!
 
The Bible is not a history book as we understand history, and it’s purpose is not to teach history, but rather to be means of God revealing himself to us.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
Not the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
This is true, but I hope it’s okay if I add a little more?

Scripture IS infallible when teaching spiritual truths for the sake of salvation. (Is Scripture Inerrant? | Catholic Answers)

The price of cattle or how much David paid is not essential to salvation. There are even parts where science is grossly ignored or contradicted in scriptures, but scriptures are not a science book, history book, or economic book. It is there to teach about the nature and plan of God and salvation. Details like that just don’t matter in the long run.
 
Your view of a book of history is not the same as an author’s view in ancient times. Yet, even today two different books of history on the same topic will contract each other.

And if this is a problem, check out the Gospels. Was Jesus’s ministry 3 years or 1? Was the last supper a Passover meal or not?
 
chessnerd321 said:
How are we to deal with small, yet very clear contradictions in the Bible such as this one:

2 Samuel 24:23-24
23 Your Majesty, Araunah gives all this to the king.” Araunah also said to him, “May the Lord your God accept you.” 24 But the king replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the Lord my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.” So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen and paid fifty shekels of silver for them.
Click to expand...
It is quite simple. Read more closely. The mistake is in the reader.

2 Samuel 24:21-25, see vs 21, “To buy the threshingfloor of thee”, see vs 24, "So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver."

Context, fifty shekels of silver for the threshing floor and some oxen.

1 Chronicles 21:24-30, see vs 25, “the place”, “six hundred shekels of gold by weight”, not merely the threshing floor and oxen. The “place of” the “threshing floor” is not the “threshing floor” itself, but a larger piece of property in which, or on which, the “threshing floor” was.

Context, the whole mountainside, see 2 Chronicles 3:1, "mount Moriah"

The preserved word of God in English (KJB; Psalms 12:6-7) is without error in its preserved words, and cannot be broken in those words (John 10:35).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top