Deuterocanon contradiction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TristanCross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TristanCross

Guest
I see a contradiction in Judith, Chapter One, Verse Five:

Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him,

Nebuchudnezzar was king of Babylon. How could this book be inspired if it give misinformation?
 
Better go through the rest of the books of the Bible, because you’re going to find ‘historical’ contradictions like that all throughout both the New and the Old Testament. None of them however contradict the inerrancy of Scripture.

You accept Kings and Chronicles, don’t you? But according to 1 Kings Chapter 42Jehoshaphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned for twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Azubah daughter of Shilhi. 43He walked in all the way of his father Asa; he did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the Lord; **yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and offered incense on the high places.

But according to 2 Chronicles 17 3The Lord was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the earlier ways of his father;[*](javascript:void(0)😉 he did not seek the Baals, 4but sought the God of his father and walked in his commandments, and not according to the ways of Israel. 5Therefore the Lord established the kingdom in his hand. All Judah brought tribute to Jehoshaphat, and he had great riches and honour. 6His heart was courageous in the ways of the Lord; and furthermore he removed the high places and the sacred poles[*](javascript:void(0);)** from Judah.

uh-oh my friend. One says Jehosaphat did NOT remove the high places; the other says he DID.

If you’re going to complain about the ‘historical inaccuracy’ of Judith–you’ll have to throw out 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles based on the above --aren’t you?
 
Now I firmly believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I don’t find any fault with the ‘discrepancy’ in the above noted contradictions between Kings and Chronicles. . .because I believe that the Truth of the Word is there. If there is a seeming contradiction, it is that in reading the above, my human mind lacks the understanding of God’s. Setting aside human error (and we all know about the Adulterer’s Bible where the printer mistakenly left out the 'not ’ in “Thou shalt not commit adultery” for example, if there is an error in our ‘perception’ we can guarantee that the error wasn’t made by God. So. . .what is the point in BOTH Kings and Chronicles regarding Jehosephat? That, even in those kings who did the will of God. . .the will was not ‘totally’ God’s. . .the kings still were prone to error, and even the best of them, the ones who did God’s will, might stop the practices at one time and then they’d start again. Whether Jehosephat did or did not take down the high altars (and indeed he may have done so at one point and they might have gone up again later, or in some place without his knowledge). . . is not the point, so it does not matter that there appears to be a contradiction; it does not detract from the inerrancy of Scripture.

So I don’t find fault with Nebuchadnezzer being a king of Assyria or Babylon (and indeed, it is possible that whoever ruled was called by that name as later Roman emperors were called ‘caesars’ or some such).
 
I’ve already tried explaining this to you, but the above poster did a much more admirable job than I. Tristan, I don’t mean to speak for you or anything, but I think you were having problems with Scripture not being accurate scientifically and historical respects, right? The best advice I can give is that it’s hard to accept that considering things contained in Scripture, but maybe someone else can give a better answer.
 
There are no contradictions or errors in the Sacred Scriptures, because they have the all-knowing God for their Author - that is Catholic dogma. Copying and translating errors are another story; but in your example, that is definitely not the case. But did you know that the early Christians would call any wicked Emperor, Nero? Did you know that St. Peter referred to Rome as Babylon (1 Peter 5:13)? And that in Revelation, St. John is not talking about the literal Babylon? And there are many other examples. And so, the sacred author of Judith is obviously using the name Nabuchodonosor as a codename, or their was another king with the same name or a similar name. None of which has any bearing on the historicity of the Book of Judith, on which point the Church Fathers were unanimous - knowing full well that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon. God bless.
 
#1.1112 BC.New Babylonian-Nebuchadnezzar 1 delivers Babylonia from the Elamite invasion.#2.900BC-Decline in the political power of Babylonia which falls under the hegemony of Assyria,while retaining autoomous dynasties.#3.745BC.The king of Assyria also assumes the title of king of Babylonia.#4.605BC.Nabopolassar captures Ninevah(part of Babylonia/Assyrian empire)and initiates the Neo-Babylonian Empire(or Chaldean Empire).#5.538BC.Nebuchadnezzar 11 subjugates and then destroys the kingdom of Judah.As you can see there were more than one Nebuchadnezzar.Nabopolassar is a differant person entirely.Hope this helps.Rocky
 
I didn’t mean that Scripture has error, but rather, as you said, there are translating errors but for the most part, some things are described allegorically, such as the Creation story.
 
GeorgeSword said:
I didn’t mean that Scripture has error, but rather, as you said, there are translating errors but for the most part, some things are described allegorically, such as the Creation story.
Click to expand...
I would personally have to disagree. I take the Creation “story” as literal. The text doesn’t suggest at all that the “story” is figurative. The Jews have always believed it to be literal. Jesus Himself believed in the literal Creation “story”. I doubt God would have any of them live in such error.

Thanks, everyone, for your answers.

God bless.
 
The Catholic Church does not require one to interpret the Creation story literally or figuratively; both positions do not contradict the faith. Neither does the Catholic Church require one to consider every detail presented in Sacred Scripture to be a historical/scientific fact. Ultimately, we must read Scripture with the Church, in the light of her living Tradition; where the Magisterium of the Church has not given an exclusive, infallible interpretation of a particular text, there may be more than 1 interpretations possible. We need not always restrict ourselves to an either-or approach in matters that the Successors of the Apostles haven’t made a decision.

Does it matter whether God created the world in 6 days or longer? As long as our faith in a God who is loving Creator, who imagines and sustains the world and each of us in existence, that the world and man are willed by God who has a plan and purpose and that man is the pinnacle of God’s creation are unshaken, does it matter that much?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top