Biblical Inconsistencies, by Donald Morgan

The bible is greatly misunderstood, for several reasons, both scholastic and spiritual interpretation.

1. Scholastic. The first bible, the Didach, was compiled about 125 AD, in Athens. In 80 AD, the Roman's had finally had enough of the jews, sacked Jerusalem, and caused the "diasporsia", or dispersal of Jews from the area of Judea. When the Didach was compiled from hebrew scrolls, there was not one Jew or native hebrew speaking person there. This caused several transliteration errors, the most well known one being the feeding of the 5,000 with loaves & fishes. The traditional bread of the hebrews was unleavened, and rolled, pointed on the ends. It was called the "fish loaf", because of its shape. In the Didach, it was translated as "loaves & fishes". This kind of problem is redundant throughout the bible.

Also, the early fathers carefully edited out the scrolls which refered to transmigration, a known part of esoteric Jewish and Essene thinking. The reason for this is the early fathers of the Christian church, so far removed from Jesus even at that time, didnt want their parishioners to think they had more than 1 lifetime in which to get it right. A reference which survived was the fact that the Jews were waiting for the "return" of Elijah and Elisha, which is none other than belief in reincarnation. (And whom were, in fact, Jesus & John the Baptist.)

2. Spiritually, the transliteration errors are basically minor. But it is important to realize certain facts.
a. The old testament is a history of the Jews leading to the time of Christ, and all their laws and revelations are not part nor parcel of Christianity, and therefore irrelevant;
b. The 12 apostles, while bodyguards of the Christ and fortunate beyond belief in the grace of god, were not, for the most part, spiritual adepts. Although their mission was to first protect Jesus, then spread the gospels (stories) of the son of god, it does not appear that any of them had the power to intercede with god for the direct salvation of souls, as Jesus could. The inner tradition on Christianity was probably carried on by the "underground" gnostics, or knowers, which may have included doubting Thomas and Mary Magdelene, and such. The inner tradition apparently died from world view with Christ. Even in the new testament, much of Jesus teaching was to renew in man the of God, leaving it for future masters to reap the harvest Jesus sowed. Much of the new Testament, even Jesus's word's, are not the inner teachings, but parables to reinvigorate people's interest in the divine. ONLY THE WORDS OF JESUS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT HAVE THE POWER OF OF GOD, AND EVEN WHAT HE SAID WAS FOR ENLIGHTENMENT, NOT SALVATION. (Barring transliteration errors, as Jesus and all the Essenes were strictly vegetarian.) As the others around him were primarily not God invested Saints, their comments are not worthy of our attributing them to the divine.

Jesus was unquestionable the "som of God", but he is not the only one, another trap for dogmatic Christians. Unlucky.

God bless us and keep us all.

Love.

lee

We agree that the Bible is misunderstood. We also tend to agree that the laws and *regulations* (or did you really mean "revelations"?) of the Old Testament pertain to Jews rather than to Christians. On the other hand, some of what you say doesn't fit the facts as I know them. In addition, some of what you say represents your personal religious conviction; I don't see much point in simply elaborating mine so yours will elicit no comment from me.

The Didache claims to have been authored by the twelve apostles, but that isn't at all likely to be true. Although it was probably written in Greek, it was likely written in a small community (perhaps in Egypt or Syria as has been suggested by some scholars) rather than in Athens. The date of its authorship is uncertain; dates from as early as about 50 AD to as late as mid second-century have been suggested. It is also fairly certain that modifications took place even much later, perhaps well into the third century. Although it is said to have first appeared in about 100-110 AD, it is also said to have been unknown prior to its discovery in 1873.

The Didache is more a manual of regulations, morals, and church practice, than it is a Bible. It contains rules about the hospitality to be granted to apostles and prophets, about who should be men of honor together with prophets and teachers, about the appointment of bishops and deacons, the structure of Church government, etc. It says absolutely nothing about the feeding of 5000 with fishes and/or loaves, at least not in any of the versions that I have seen.

Prior to the Jewish revolt against the Romans, the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora to which you refer, there had been approximately 4,000,000 Jews living in the Roman Empire. To say that there was not one Jew or native Hebrew-speaking person there after 80 AD is, on the face of it, preposterous. Not only do the numbers make it seem so but--more importantly--there is no way that anyone could possibly know that such was the case unless, of course, he/she were omniscient.

-DM-

[Richard Carrier]

Indeed, Don, one wonders how the territory of Judaea could have temporarily broken away from Rome in a massive Jewish-led revolt under Bar Kochba in the 130's if there were no Jews there. Archaeology confirms a Jewish, Hebrew-speaking (or Aramaic-speaking, a very similar language) presence throughout Palestine after 70 (when the war ended, apart from the siege of Masada that lasted until 74--but at any rate not 80). Indeed, evidence continues even after the Bar Kochba revolt, when Hadrian issued an edict banning Jews from ever entering the city of Jerusalem again--and just the city, not the territory of Judaea. Indeed, there was never a time in history when there were no substantial Jewish populations in Judaea--even the so-called "exiles" under the Babylonians and Assyrians were relatively small in scale and show no signs of having made any real dent in the Jewish population of the region, and even under Islamic domination, and right up to the present, there were Jews there.

Originally posted by Donald Morgan:
If this feedback is to my material on the Bible, keep in mind that I use the word "error" only three times in that material: twice in the "Introduction" and once in the "Inconsistencies" section. Rather than emphasize "error," I emphasize inconsistencies, absurdities, and the like. Still, the Bible does contain errors; it can be demonstrated that it sometimes deviates from what is correct, right, or true. Daniel 5:2 is an example: Nebodnius, not Nebuchadnezzar, was the father of Belshazzar. That is fact.
Fine. Of course ben and ob do not neccesarily mean "father" and "son" the same way they do in English. They can mean grampa, great-grampa, etc, or even refer as a non-physical "descendent"

What's interesting is that that part in Daniel used to seem like a contradiction to me: because Jeremiah prophesies that Nebuchadnezzar, his son and his son after him would rule. But if Belteshezzar was Nebb's true son, then that would mean the prophecy in Jeremiah was wrong- as there would be no 3rd generation.

The Hebrew word which is translated "father" in Daniel 5:2 is ab [transliterated]. Strong's Hebrew Dictionary and Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Dictionary give the meaning as "father" or "fathers." So I do see your point. On the other hand, if "grandfather," or "ancestor(s)" were intended, then a perfect and omnipotent god could have and should have inspired the Bible authors to use a word which clearly meant what He had in mind or all translators to translate ab so that its meaning were unambiguous.

[This message has been edited by Donald Morgan (edited March 23, 2001).]

Hey, I made a big mistake when copying and pasting the last post you gave to a-theistnot atheist. But I was replying to your post, not to a-theist's post. Am sorry a-theist, i did not look at what I was copying, nor at what I had pasted. But the message is the same for Donald, look at what jesus gave for an answer when he was asked why he spoke in parables. You will find all the answers there.

I was once a born-again, Bible-believing Christian myself. I attended numerous Bible studies, I was personally discipled by my pastor, and I served for a time as Chairman of the Christian Education Committee at a satellite church associated with a large and well-known Bible church. It is not as if I don't have a pretty good idea both of what the Bible says and what it allegedly means. Further, I have looked--many times--at what the Bible says that Jesus said about why he spoke in parables.

It is certainly not to Jesus' credit that he spoke in parables for the purpose of hiding the meaning of at least some of his teachings from at least some of his listeners--specifically so that they would not turn and be forgiven [MT 11:25, MK 4:11-12]. Plain and simply, it is morally reprehensible to speak in less than plain language when correct understanding could be a matter of life and death.

On other occasions, however, Jesus allegedly instructed his listeners to give straightforward answers [MT 5:37, 15:19, MK 7:22, JN 8:14, 44, 14:6, 18:37]. Thus, you cannot simply choose one Bible verse in an attempt to "explain" a problem with another; there are too many biblical inconsistencies to make it meaningful to do so.

If you believe that what Jesus allegedly said about speaking in parables provides "all the answers" about why the Bible isn't more clear in some instances, then I think that you, like Jesus, engage in overly-simplistic thinking.

Don

[This message has been edited by Donald Morgan (edited April 06, 2001).]

It is certainly not to Jesus' credit that he spoke in parables for the purpose of hiding the meaning of at least some of his teachings from at least some of his listeners--specifically so that they would not turn and be forgiven [MT 11:25, MK 4:11-12]. Plain and simply, it is morally reprehensible to speak in less than plain language when correct understanding could be a matter of life and death.

I think this is a very legitimate line of argument Donald. In effect I have made it myself to Christians and never been comfortable with their answers.

On other occasions, however, Jesus allegedly instructed his listeners to give straightforward answers [MT 5:37, 15:19, MK 7:22, JN 8:14, 44, 14:6, 18:37]. Thus, you cannot simply choose one Bible verse in an attempt to "explain" a problem with another; there are too many biblical inconsistencies to make it meaningful to do so.

Indeed. I get very frustrated with Christians who in effect claim to have *the* keycode that says "My verse takes precedence over yours". Says who? would be my response.

If you believe that what Jesus allegedly said about speaking in parables provides "all the answers" about why the Bible isn't more clear in some instances, then I think that you, like Jesus, engage in overly-simplistic thinking.

Donald you are one smart guy. I can easily see how you were X-Christianed. Of, if you prefer, how you X-Christianed yourself. Whichever you prefer...the end is the same, isn't it?

I feel honored to have someone so insightful as you here! http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/smile.gif

take care Donald,
Helen

I admit, I am an evangelical Christian. However, I find this site very informative and hope to continue using it as a tool for researching secular thinking. I also like to read what skeptics have to say about what I believe. Though I do not profess to be a scholar, I would suggest you find someone a little more informed about biblical literature (ex. genre, Hebrew writing, the difference between commissive and referential language, historical context etc.). We do not consider the scripture to be some sort of a magic book. It must be read like other literature. Until the people that you have on here posting "contradiction" articles (like the Burr article and some of Martin's attempts in his debates to bring up "contradictions") and the like get a better grip on these type of things, even folks with a limited understanding of literary analysis will not take you seriously. Just to give one example, Burr tries to show that the bible contridicts by saying wisdom is good in one place and bad in the other. If Burr would check the context of Proverbs when it talks about wisdom, he would recognize that this wisdom is wisdom that comes from God or is centered on God. Naturally this is good (that is what the context suggests). The "wisdom" in first Corinthians that is considered bad is that which supposes itself to be wise while in reality is not because it is antithetical to the cross of Christ (true wisdom). I am sure you folks want to be accurate when you set out to prove (or disprove) something. When one misrepresents what he sets out to rebut or disprove, he only puts his own integrity on trial. I hope this suggestion is helpful. Blessings

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback. We're glad that you find this site informative; that is, after all, one of our goals.

When you say, "We do not consider the scripture to be some sort of a magic book" and "It must be read like other literature" you need to keep in mind:
1.) that you essentially agree with the position of the Bible-skeptic, but
2.) you certainly do not speak for all Bible-believers or for all Christians.

The Bible is considered by some believers to be "the veritable Word of God" and by others to be at least inspired (to at least some degree) by "God." Certainly most Christians and Bible-believers would consider the Bible more than just literature. If the Bible were actually inspired by "God," then there would be good reason to read it as other than just literature. It is this inspired view of the Bible, of course, which those who compile lists of contradictions (or "inconsistencies" as I prefer to call them) intend to argue against.

With regard to specific "contradiction articles," I am not aware of any such article on our site by an author named "Burr." There is an article entitled A List of Biblical Contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html) by Jim Meritt which cites Burr as a reference. If this is the article that you have in mind, the only reference to wisdom is this:

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that in- creaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

I disagree that the context in PR 4.7 is necessarily "wisdom that comes from God or is centered on God." 4.1 makes it rather clear that this is a father's instruction to a child. Young's Literal Translation translates 4.1 as follows: "Hear, ye sons, the instruction of a father, And give attention to know understanding."

As The New Oxford Annotated Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019528478X/InternetInfidelsA) puts it: "The purpose of the book (1.1-6) is to transmit the insights whereby a youth might learns to cope with life. Theses were gathered from the traditions of the elders (e.g. 4.1-4) and from experience and observation (e.g., 6.6-11). ... The teaching of the sages is marked by an optimistic view of retribution. Wisdom (generally equated with righteousness) brings success; folly (or wickedness) brings destruction. This is also the teaching of Deuteronomy and other biblical words. The sages were not, however, unaware of the limitations of wisdom, and of the ambiguities and mysteries of life (3.11-12). There was no wisdom that could prevail against the Lord (21.30) ...." [emphasis mine]

As Matthew Henry's Commentary puts it: "Here we have, The invitation which Solomon gives to his children to come and receive instruction from him (v. 1, 2): Hear, you children, the instruction of a father." [emphasis mine]

As Adam Clarke's Commentary puts it: "Proverbs 4:1
Hear, ye children--Come, my pupils, and hear how a father instructed his child. Such as I received from my father I give to you, and they were the teachings of a wise and affectionate parent to his only son, a peculiar object of his regards, and also those of a fond mother."

-----------

The wisdom which Paul talks about in 1 CO 1.19-20 is the wisdom of the wise, the wisdom of this world. This is not significantly different than the wisdom, learned through experience, the wisdom that a father would want to pass on to a son, the wisdom of PR 4.7.

As The New Commentary on the Whole Bible puts it: "This verse is a slightly altered rendition of the prophecy in Isaiah 29:14 (LXX). The Hebrew text reads: 'The wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.' Paul by inspiration gives the spiritual sense by making God the subject of the sentence."

-----------

Yes, we want to be accurate. And no, we are not infallible. But there is a good deal of inaccuracy in the attempts of Christian apologists to explain away obvious inconsistencies between one Bible verse and another.

-----------

Note: Anyone interested in exploring biblical inconsistencies further should seemy material on the Bible (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/).

And:Biblical Criticism page (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/criticism.html).

As well as:Biblical Errancy page (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html).

--Don--

[Jasin]

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Context is important!!!!
Gen 1:4 LIGHT: NOT the sun which was created on the fourth day (v. 16), but some fixed light source outside the earth. The earth passed through a day-and-night cycle in reference to this light. (Liberty Doctrinal FootNotes 1988)

Btw I can Give at least 100 examples of a "fixed light source" that are in no way the sun or related to it in anyway whatsoever and even several that are outside the earth. Any idiot who knows the basics of science and theology can!

Well It's clear that the first one is not a contridiction or what this website is calling an INCONSISTENCIE. So I refuse to go any further into this webiste.

[-DM-]

While this may not be a true "contridiction [sic]," it most definitely is an "INCONSISTENCIE [sic]" so far as I am concerned. Further, I think that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had He anything to do with the writing of a book.

It is the Sun which provides the light of day, separates night from day, and provides the means by which we separate one day from the next. There is no other "fixed light source" of equal magnitude, thus your so-called explanation is simply one more example of an ad hoc "how-it-might-have-been" scenario in a feeble attempt to get the primitive authors [plural] of Genesis off the hook with regard to the inconsistencies in that book. Your "explanation" is no better than an alternative such as that "God" turned a powerful flashlight on and off in order to separate one day from the next prior to the time that He subsequently created the Sun.

Regarding delving further into this "webiste [sic]," I can certainly understand your reluctance to go beyond the very first of my BIBLICAL INCONSISTENCIES (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html); it can be a bit disturbing to discover just how many there are in the Bible. It certainly was disturbing for me, yet I feel quite fortunate that--even during the time that I was myself a rather fundamentalist Christian--I was able to keep an open mind with regard to knew knowledge about the Bible. Eventually I came to understand that the Bible couldn't be the work of a perfect and omnipotent "God"--unless, perhaps, He had some ulterior motive in giving us such a flawed book, a motive which would be inconsistent with His alleged love.

--Don--

I refer to the list of Biblical Inconsistencies that you have displayed. The Bible has no inconsistencies. God does not lie. If you would oblige me, you will reply to me at town007@hotmail.com. I would love to show you how the things that you have listed are not actually mistakes. If you do not reply, I will take this to mean that your argument is feeble and that you can not back it up.
Thank you for your time and discussion. God bless you.

[-DM-]

Regarding your feedback to my article Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html), it should be obvious that, to some extent at least, what is and is not an inconsistency is a matter of opinion. If you believe that the Bible is without inconsistency, then you obviously are less exacting than I am in terms of what you see as an inconsistency.

To me, it seems quite obvious that when one Bible verse says, for example, that those present with Paul at his so-called conversion heard a voice but saw no one (AC 9:7) and another verse says that they saw a light but did not hear a voice (AC 22:9), or one Bible verse says that they stood (AC 9:7) while another verse says that they fell to the ground (AC 26:14) -- there is an inconsistency involved. If you feel otherwise, so be it.

I wonder, however, if you would feel the same way about what I allege to be inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon and in the Koran, inconsistencies which Mormons and Muslims, respectively, deny, of course? My guess is that -- like me -- you would agree that those two books do indeed contain genuine inconsistencies and yet you would likely continue to allow yourself to believe that the Bible does not, justifying the application of different criteria by which the different books would be judged.

---------

Regarding your claim that "God" does not lie. I am inclined to agree with you, "God" does not lie; "He" does not lie because "He" -- like any other nonexistent entity -- does nothing at all.

Of course the two questions: does "God" exist and (if so) does "He" lie?, are really irrelevant, the way that I see it, to the question of whether the Bible does or does not contain inconsistencies. The fact that a god existed would not necessarily imply anything whatsoever about the presence or absence of inconsistencies in the Bible -- unless, perhaps, one were to take the fundamentalist approach and claim that the Bible is the complete, perfect, inspired, and plenary work of a perfect and omnipotent "God"; in THAT case, I would tend to agree that we should expect to find no inconsistencies in such a Bible. Of course the obvious implication here, at least to me, would be that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had "He" anything to do with the writing of "His Word" (as some claim the Bible to be).

Frog bless you,
--Don--

[Secular Elation]

I stumbled upon Morgan's list of his online work, and the one I skimmed through was "Biblical Inconsistencies." Very good page! Dozens upon dozens of problematic examples. Since I am not an expert on the Bible and that religion, I cannot comment on whether or not all examples are valid - but after looking at a few of them, they are quite contradictory. Still, even if an ardent apologist could explain some of those examples, I simply cannot fathom how any theist could not reconsider Biblical inerrancy with such an immense list of inconsistencies.

One I especially liked was this:

LK 8:12 The Devil causes unbelief.
MK 4:11-12 Jesus is responsible for unbelief in at least some cases.
2TH 2:11-12 God is ultimately responsible for unbelief in at least some cases.

LOL!

[-DM-]

Thank you for your positive feedback regarding my Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html).

While the disclaimer states that the listing is "meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation," it seems to me that any reasonable interpretation of the Bible would acknowledge that there are, in fact, many biblical inconsistencies.

Of course fundamentalists deny that such is the case, and they can and do come up with what to them are satisfactory explanations for any "alleged" inconsistency. Usually these "explanations" are ad hoc, how-it-might-have-been scenarios which allegedly get the Bible and its "God" off the hook. In actuality, however, they are often less than satisfactory explanations; the problem is that it is not sufficient to think of some possible, hypothetical explanation, rather it is also necessary to show why the proposed explanation is more likely than that an inconsistency actually exists.

In any case, my take on it is that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had "He" anything to do with the inspiration of His "Word," HIs Holy Book. As it is, if the Bible is taken as the "Word of God" (as some believers insist is the case) then it seems obvious to me that "God" could not be both perfect and omnipotent. The simpler explanation, however, is that the Bible is NOT the work of a god.

--

Speaking of a favorite inconsistency, this is mine:

PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.
1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 God deceives* some of the prophets.
JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word.
2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them).
(Note: Every word of God cannot prove true if God deceives anyone at all; the interpretation of the Bible cannot be trusted if the scribes falsify the word. The first reference is mutually exclusive with the other three. Thus, the Bible cannot be the perfect work of a perfect and loving God since one or more of the above references is obviously untrue.)
(*Note: Some versions use the word "persuade." The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.)

Regards,
--Don--

CONFIRMABLE THEOLOGY?

Dear Mr. Morgan

I visited your forum and found it interesting, though a good representation of the polarization from both sides of the theist/non-theist aisle. I would just contribute that the analytical approach within the biblical issues raised here avoids a broader perspective and a range of “theories” that can be considered to answer many such inconsistencies in ancient history, just as with any science that doesn’t always “factually” stare us in the face.

My view in all this focuses on the ultimate purpose of biblical scripture as an instruction manual. If there is a true God, a virtuous and eternal life, and instructions on how to know and achieve both, I would want the most reliable documentation I can find. The alternatives are to follow unreliable sources, speculate from my personal world-view, or write off eternity entirely and hope I guessed right. But if reasonable information is available, I figure I’ve got nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain if I heed it. Sometimes the instructions might not fit my limited view of how things should operate, but how much do I trust myself over the professed manufacturer?

Despite the inconsistencies raised on your site, the fact is that biblical scripture overall and the wealth of manuscripts from which it is derived (most of which still exist today in one form or another for scrutiny by theists and non-theists alike) demonstrate significant validity within the study of ancient history through documentation, textual criticism, archaeology, geography, etc. Certainly, no other religious writings garner such confirmation in the sciences over such a long period of time. Historical documentation has even served to refute the “divine” nature of some spiritual founders revealing their own proclamations of non-divinity or a conspicuously contradictory personal example for their divinity.

Though I may find it an interesting exercise to rectify apparent contradictions that may arise in the Bible and attempt to determine if they are from “original” documents or the shortfalls of language translation, I am surprised, with all the historical support for biblical content, when some would use such relatively meager considerations to try to discredit the Bible and its corresponding theology as a whole. The Bible is not a single “theory” to be dashed, but an exhaustive collection of writings from different people, places, and times that must be at least considered for the remarkable content and thread of consistency that runs through it. There are obviously events and individuals that can’t be directly or factually proven in any such material, but neither can they be summarily discarded in light of all the confirmable elements, with the acceptance of secular histories based on equal or less criteria, and considering ongoing discoveries which are constantly providing new clues and revelations.

I trust that your readers would make a concerted effort to review all the information possible about biblical scripture and the related sciences rather than bow to easier and often self-serving condemnation, and ascertain if their future and that of their generations may benefit from what it may offer both factually and spiritually. I also suggest that, for the more discerning, this may not come from the average ministry but from diligent personal pursuit and gifted teachers. And it will probably not be intellect that brings us to a complete understanding.

I Cor. 1:21 (NKJV, NIV) – For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know him, it pleased God through the “foolishness” of the message preached to save those who believe.

[-DM-]

Ira:

I am not certain what it is that you have in mind when you say that you visited my "forum." You didn't identify the title of any article or provide a URL and I don't have a forum, per se. Various of my articles (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/) are included in the Secular Web Modern LIbrary, and some of those articles address what I--and many others--consider to be biblical problems which are serious enough to preclude that the Bible was inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God." I'm assuming it is these articles which you have in mind, and in particular, my compilation of Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html).

--

While it may be your intention to focus "on the ultimate purpose of biblical scripture as an instruction manual," it is not at all self-evident that this is the "ultimate purpose of biblical scripture." I would agree, however, that whether there is or isn't "a true God," any reasonable person should want the most reliable documentation that s/he can find with regard to leading a virtuous life, whether that life be finite or eternal. In that regard, however, I believe that the Bible fails miserably for the very reason that it is hopelessly unreliable.

Even if one were able to convince him/herself that the Bible provides "reasonable information" in a general sense, the fact is that one might have plenty to lose and little to gain if s/he were to try to heed it. After all, the Bible is only one of several competing Holy Books which were allegedly revealed by a god. Which of those competing "Holy Books" to trust seems to be mostly a matter of where one is born and which religious belief system was held by one's parents. Not only that, heeding the Bible involves a belief in demon-possession as the cause of ill, the laying on of hands and exorcism as a viable cure for illness and disease, the ability to handle snakes and drink poison without suffering harm--and a number of other equally ineffective, impractical and/or downright dangerous practices. Thus, the potential for loss (rather than gain) can be increased by believing too wholeheartedly in what was written by ancient and comparatively ignorant men, men who claimed to be speaking for a perfect and omnipotent god when the fact of the matter is that what they put into the mouth of that god would make "Him" imperfect and/or less than omnipotent.

You ask, " . . . but how much do I trust myself over the professed manufacturer?," and yet you seem to fail to see the paradox in what is implied in that very question, namely that you have already trusted your judgement with regard to the advisability of buying into the concept of a "professed manufacturer" put forth in but one of several mutually-exclusive holy books written by men who claim to be speaking for "God" while at the same time you imply that you cannot sufficiently trust your own judgement so as to rely on it.

Yes, the "manuscripts from which the Bible is derived" mostly still exist today in one form or another and yes, they demonstrate significant validity. They also demonstrate significant invalidity. The latter is not what one would expect in the case of a perfect and omnipotent "God" and should give one pause in terms of trust.

To cite "documentation, textual criticism, archaeology, geography, etc." as confirming the Bible is myopic given that the same disciplines can be used to point up its shortcomings.

To state that "no other religious writings garner such confirmation in the sciences over such a long period of time" is foolish given that the very same claim is made by Muslims with regard to the Quran.

Regarding our readers, many of them (including me) have made more than "a concerted effort" to review a sufficient quantity of the available information about biblical scripture and related sciences to become convinced the Bible is not worthy of our trust, that it is its own worst enemy, an almost certain path to nontheism for anyone who feels that s/he can spot quackery when s/he sees it.

Keep in mind that I was once a born-again, Bible-believing Christian myself. I attended literally dozens of Bible studies and I eagerly learned what I could from many gifted teachers. It was the Bible itself which led me away from Christianity. So far as I am concerned, a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had "He" inspired the writing of a book such as the Bible. And I am not alone in my opinion.

--Don--

[-DM-]

Ira responds:

---------

Author Topic: Confirmed Theology? II
<Ira White>
unregistered

posted May 22, 2002 07:22 AM

Don,
I guess my only problem with the views you expressed is based on an implication that biblical scripture or its translations must be totally inerrant, at least from our human understanding, as the “divine word of God”. I still struggle with this to a degree recognizing that some content appears simple cataloging of insignificant events or cultural issues, and at least some self-professed personal opinions: “…I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgement…” (I Cor. 7:25, NIV).

If I choose to accept a perfect and omnipotent God, I can’t necessarily blame him for inconsistencies that may arise within the documentation of men. Rather, I might use tools to assess a likely explanation as discussed by Jeffery Lowder in his article at <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/mckinsey.html:" target="_blank">www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/mckinsey.html:</a> “…historians do not throw out entire groups of documents simply because the documents contradict one another about the incidental details. Instead, historians try to determine the best historical explanation for those disagreements, in an attempt to identify the core historical facts.” Then I can but trust my judgement for that which I can reasonably determine on my own, and trust “the manufacturer” for the lessons within that may be beyond my understanding or perspective. I don’t see that as a paradox.

As for “the very same claim is made by Muslims with regard to the Quran” and from a strictly historical standpoint, it has seemed clear in my studies that the offerings of Mohammed, along with those of the Mormon Joseph Smith, appear to be uncorroborated, predictable and self-serving revisions of established Judaic-Christian scripture from which they were derived hundreds or thousands of years later, and their personal backgrounds and actions tend to support this. I believe and hope my studies were not swayed by bias as I was actually leaning towards Mormonism at one point.

Beyond what I believe is an essential pursuit for validity within the phenomena of physically-manifested spiritual gifts and prophecies, we can only tax our intellectual prowess towards the understanding, rejection, or reconciling of scripture. Nevertheless, we can respect each other’s passion for the truth and the choices we each must make. Thank you for the opportunity of sharing these views with you.

Ira White

[-DM-]

Ira:
I guess my only problem with the views you expressed is based on an implication that biblical scripture or its translations must be totally inerrant, at least from our human understanding, as the "divine word of God".

That is perhaps your inference, but that was not my implication. I tried to make it clear that quantity and quality were involved.

Don:
Various of my articles are included in the Secular Web Modern LIbrary, and some of those articles address what I--and many others--consider to be biblical problems which are serious enough to preclude that the Bible was inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God." . . . I believe that the Bible fails miserably for the very reason that it is hopelessly unreliable. . . . So far as I am concerned, a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had "He" inspired the writing of a book such as the Bible.

But now that you mention it, there certainly is no reason that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could not, should not, or would not see to it that anything which "He" was involved in was itself perfect. Anything less would either deny "God's" alleged perfection or his alleged omnipotence--or both.

Ira:
If I choose to accept a perfect and omnipotent God, I can't necessarily blame him for inconsistencies that may arise within the documentation of men.

Then you deny his omnipotence and/or perfection. Let's face it, with a supernatural being who is allegedly perfect and omnipotent, the buck stops with that being when it comes to imperfections in a book which "He" has allegedly inspired.

Ira:
Rather, I might use tools to assess a likely explanation as discussed by Jeffery Lowder in his article at <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/mckinsey.html:" target="_blank">www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/mckinsey.html:</a> "historians do not throw out entire groups of documents simply because the documents contradict one another about the incidental details. Instead, historians try to determine the best historical explanation for those disagreements, in an attempt to identify the core historical facts."

Your "God" is not a run-of-the-mill historian, rather he is allegedly perfect and omnipotent. No historian that I know of makes that claim nor is that claim made that I know of by anyone else about any historian. That claim is, however, made about the "God" of Christianity, the "God" of the Bible. Your "God" cannot legitimately be compared to a mere historian.

Ira:
Then I can but trust my judgement for that which I can reasonably determine on my own, and trust "the manufacturer" for the lessons within that may be beyond my understanding or perspective. I don't see that as a paradox.

Even if it could be convincingly demonstrated that "a perfect and omnipotent God" exists, it would need to be convincingly demonstrated that this "God" had also inspired a Bible before I would want to believe that demon possession was at the root of illness, that illness could be cured by the laying on of hands and/or exorcism, that I could handle poisonous snakes and drink poison without it doing me any harm, that whatever I asked for in prayer believing I would receive I would actually receive, etc., etc., and even then, the fact that these teachings fly in the face of experience would give me pause.

If you want to believe these things--or if you want to use your own judgement to pick and choose what you will and will not believe in the Bible--so be it. Myself, I would judge "God" to be morally reprehensible had "He" anything to do with a book which is as imperfect as is the Bible.

Ira:
As for "the very same claim is made by Muslims with regard to the Quran" and from a strictly historical standpoint, it has seemed clear in my studies that the offerings of Mohammed, along with those of the Mormon Joseph Smith, appear to be uncorroborated, predictable and self-serving revisions of established Judaic-Christian scripture from which they were derived hundreds or thousands of years later, and their personal backgrounds and actions tend to support this.

The same can be said with regard to Christian revisions of the Old Testament--and even of the alleged teachings of Jesus inasmuch as very little of what he allegedly taught had not been taught before him and inasmuch as the myth of God incarnate--killed, and resurrected--is pre-Christian.

Ira:
Beyond what I believe is an essential pursuit for validity within the phenomena of physically-manifested spiritual gifts and prophecies, we can only tax our intellectual prowess towards the understanding, rejection, or reconciling of scripture. Nevertheless, we can respect each other's passion for the truth and the choices we each must make. Thank you for the opportunity of sharing these views with you.

I certainly agree with you that we can respect each other's passion for truth and choice, but I must say that I think that the phrase "physically-manifested spiritual gifts" is oxymoronic; I tend to agree with Tom Flynn when he says that "spirituality" represents "transcendent double-talk signifying nothing."

Regards,
--Don--

Excellent site. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is yet another inconsistency in the Bible that I did not see posted on the site but would like to--

It is Matthew 26:40. The story goes that Jesus went to pray by himself. At first, he took two disciples, and then he later left those two as well. COMPLETELY alone, Jesus prays to God for God to change His mind (about letting the Romans kill Jesus). Then Jesus goes back and finds ALL the apostles sleeping. He even rebukes one of the ones he initially took with him (Peter, and it is assumed the other apostle as well). He did this entire chain of events TWO more times. Then, "WHILE HE IS STILL SPEAKING" (rebuking the disciples for the last time), he is arrested by Judas. Now, I ask you, "If Jesus was alone when he prayed and was a "stone throw away" and "all" the disciples were asleep, HOW DID ANYONE KNOW WHAT HE PRAYED? Also, why did Jesus think he could change God's mind (take this cup away from me)? The Bible made it clear that Jesus was alone and that He could not have had enough time to tell the writer what he prayed because he was arrested while he was rebuking them. Do you see the dilemma?

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback. I assume that you are responding to my Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html).

I would agree with you that MT 26:40-46 is problematic. This story reminds me somewhat of the Genesis creation story in that, prior to the creation of man, there would have been no one to record the events of the so-called creation to that point.

MT 26.40-46 does not represent an inconsistency, however, at least not according to my categorization. The inconsistencies which I catalog represent internal inconsistencies between one biblical passage and another. MT 26.40-46 more-nearly represents what I would call a Biblical Absurdity (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html). Note, however, that I do list an inconsistency between this story in Matthew and Mark and its counterpart in Luke:

MT 26:40-45, MK 14:37-41 The disciples fall asleep three times.
LK 22:45 One time.

Of course biblical apologists can "explain" their way out of almost any of these problems by using ad hoc, how-it-might-have-been scenarios, e.g., "god" revealed the information to someone else at a later date, who then passed it on, or one storteller is only telling part of the story whereas another is telling more of it.

-Don-

[Note: Blastmuffin submitted seven separate posts between 5:47 PM and 8:16 PM MDT on Sunday September 15th. I have combined them into this one post. -Don-]

--

In regards to the error you cited between Matt1:20 where the "Angel speaks to Joseph" and Luke 1: 28 where the "Angel speaks with Mary"...come on buddy , can you honestly claim this as an error, it happened on two separate occasions, exclusively...Mary's account of the angel telling her of the conception to come and Joseph hearing that she was with child and to take her as his wife...I think you were really reaching to find errors here...you must read them in the context and also notice taht they are given in two separate accounts...read a little harder next time...capiche?


--

MT 3:12, 13:42 Hell is a furnace of fire (and must therefore be light).
MT 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 Hell is an "outer darkness" (and therefore dark).

IN regards to this bit of scripture you have cited as being "inconsistent"...how do you figure...although you have injected what would appear to be a logical cause and effect thing here...when referring to the "light" in scripture, it would mean life and enlightenment, living in the light for instance...it stands to reason that we cannot simply overlook the context of the scriptures and suppose it is as black and white as all that...let's face it, fire makes light, but the light Jesus spoke of was not about a 100 watt bulb...doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out, so I have to rebuttle on that one...sorry...not a good reference for inconsistency in my opinion...on to the next inconsistency (It would appear to me, my friend, that on this one, you're definitely in the dark LOL) But hey, a free thinker I am...free to believe too ;) ;)

--


MT 3:17 The heavenly voice addressed the crowd: "This is my beloved Son."
MK 1:11, LK 3:22 The voice addressed Jesus: "You are my beloved Son...."

You assume that the Almighty was addressing the crowd in the first bit of scripture (Mat 3:17) but it never says who is being addressed...stands to reason though that whoever was there heard it...Jesus as well...or did they hear it? The crowd isn't writing a book in the bible about it, and as such don't have their own input...so you're going to assumption...bad move re: scriptures...
Furthermore...is it possible God was simply having a monologue here?...either way I'm far from convinced this is an "inconsistency" as you see it...\\MT 3:16, MK 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
JN 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.

It says he saw the spirit descent upon him...didn't specifically say Jesus saw it, but he and obviously John was there standing near him...no inconsistencies here...shall we continue? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

--

MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.
Matthew traces lineage of Joseph while Luke for some reason traces the lineage of Mary...apparently they were both descendants of David...I can understand the importance of covering all bases...

I can see how this would be misinterpreted though...hope this helps.

--

MT 3:11-14, JN 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the Messiah) either prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The very purpose of John's baptism was to reveal Jesus to Israel.
MT 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the Messiah.

This scripture was outlining the doubt that had overcome John the Baptist while he was in prison...he hadn't expected such a turn of events...logically he doubted...no where in scripture, even those who were supposedly chosen (such as John the Baptist) were immune to their own struggles of faith in the Bible...therefore, there is no case here whereas he was contradicting himself, rather, he was doubting and wanted reassurance from Jesus that He was in fact the Messiah and he got what he asked for...Jesus' reply to the two disciples John had sent to him prove that.

--

IS 53:9 Usually taken to be a prophecy re: Jesus, mentions burial with others.
MT 27:58-60, MK 15:45-46, LK 23:52-53, JN 19:38-42 Jesus was buried by himself.
In IS 53:9, it never makes mention of being buried with anyone , rather it cites He was buried as the wicked are...in the same type of way...so on

We have every reason to believe that Jesus was entombed by Himself, not sharing a grave, rather sharing a way of burial (as the wicked are entombed, being the most high, you can see the contrast here).

[-DM-]

[Note: No article title, author name, or URL was given, but I'm assuming that Blastmuffin's comments are in response to my Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html).. -Don-]

Originally posted by Blastmuffin:
In regards to the error you cited between Matt1:20 where the "Angel speaks to Joseph" and Luke 1: 28 where the "Angel speaks with Mary"...come on buddy , can you honestly claim this as an error, . . . .

Q. Where, exactly, do I claim this as an "error"?
A. I don't. I claim that it is an "inconsistency."

. . . it happened on two separate occasions, . . . .

Unless you were omniscient, you could not know with certainty what you claim to know. In any case, this is a typical apologetic, ad hoc, how-it-might-have-been maneuver which may (assuming that you believe that an angel talked to anyone at all) or may not explain what happened.

It is strange, however, if there were two separate instances of an "angel" speaking to one and then the other, that neither Mary nor Joseph seemed to communicate that event to the other, yet the Gospel authors were somehow privy to the conversation.


MT 3:12, 13:42 Hell is a furnace of fire (and must therefore be light).
MT 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 Hell is an "outer darkness" (and therefore dark).

IN regards to this bit of scripture you have cited as being "inconsistent"...how do you figure...although you have injected what would appear to be a logical cause and effect thing here...when referring to the "light" in scripture, . . . .

My use of "light" in this instance is based on the common dictionary definition of the word, not a scriptural reference.

A furnace of fire necessarily sheds some light. An unquenchable fire which burns up chaff necessarily sheds some light. An outer darkness is necessarily dark.

Whether you agree is of no concern to me. Keep in mind the disclaimer at the beginning of my work, to whit:

"NOTE: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations--after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired."

. . . But hey, a free thinker I am. . . .

A "freethinker" is one who has rejected authority and dogma--especially in religious thinking--in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. That definition does not seem to apply to you.

MT 3:17 The heavenly voice addressed the crowd: "This is my beloved Son."
MK 1:11, LK 3:22 The voice addressed Jesus: "You are my beloved Son...."

You assume that the Almighty was addressing the crowd in the first bit of scripture (Mat 3:17) but it never says who is being addressed . . .

If "the Almighty" were addressing Jesus in the first instance, then "He" used incorrect grammar.

MT 3:16, MK 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
JN 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.

It says he saw the spirit descent upon him...didn't specifically say Jesus saw it, but he and obviously John was there standing near him...no inconsistencies here...shall we continue? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Here is the full verse:

MT 3:16-17 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

It seems clear to me that the subject of the passage in question is Jesus.


MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.

Matthew traces lineage of Joseph while Luke for some reason traces the lineage of Mary...apparently they were both descendants of David...I can understand the importance of covering all bases...

Joseph is listed in both lineages as the father, or supposed father, of Jesus. Neither author says anything whatsoever about tracing the lineage through Mary's ancestry.

Note: This has been a stumbling block even for many Christian scholars.

MT 3:11-14, JN 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the Messiah) either prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The very purpose of John's baptism was to reveal Jesus to Israel.
MT 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the Messiah.

This scripture was outlining the doubt that had overcome John the Baptist while he was in prison...he hadn't expected such a turn of events...logically he doubted...

You state as a certainty what you could not possibly know with certainty--unless you were omniscient. In any case, if you want to convince me that there is no discrepancy here, you will need to do better than to simply come up with some ad hoc interpretation which mollifies that discrepancy.

IS 53:9 Usually taken to be a prophecy re: Jesus, mentions burial with others.
MT 27:58-60, MK 15:45-46, LK 23:52-53, JN 19:38-42 Jesus was buried by himself.

In IS 53:9, it never makes mention of being buried with anyone, rather it cites He was buried as the wicked are...in the same type of way...so on

IS 53:9 [NCV]
He was buried with wicked men,
and he died with the rich.
He had done nothing wrong,
and he had never lied.

"The poor . . . laid their dead to rest in common, often unmarked, graves." [p.39, "What Does the Bible Say About..." [Thomas Nelson Publishers]:

---------

Blastmuffin:

My opinion is that were a perfect and omnipotent "God" to have had anything to do with the inspiration of a holy book, "He" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it than the Bible. As it now stands, I believe that it is just as likely that the Bible was inspired by "Satan" as by "God." There is a simpler explanation, however, one that accords with the principle of Ockham's Razor and does not rely upon inspiration either by "God" or "Satan," and that is that the Bible is the work of men who, as well-intentioned as they might have been, just didn't get it right.

-Don-

There is a different heaven when we talk about Elijah being caught up and when Christ says "no man has ascended..." He's right. :)

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback to my Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html), specifically to this listing:

2KI 2:11 Elijah went up to heaven.
JN 3:13 Only the Son of Man (Jesus) has ever ascended to heaven.
2CO 12:2-4 An unnamed man, known to Paul, went up to heaven and
came back.
HE 11:5 Enoch was translated to heaven.

Originally posted by &lt;Andy&gt;:
There is a different heaven when we talk about Elijah being caught up and when Christ says "no man has ascended..." He's right. :)

If so, then your quibble is with the so-called Holy Spirit (who allegedly inspired the Bible) and with the Bible translators (whom "God" could have inspired to get it right).

The word translated "heaven in the subject verse, 2KI 2:11, is Strong's H8064 which is similarly translated "heaven" throughout the Old Testament. It is exactly the same word which is used in PS 102.19 where it is said, "from heaven did the LORD behold the earth." It is exactly the same word which is used in IS 14:12 where it is said, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

According to you, even "The Believer's Study Bible" has it wrong when it confidently declares:

Believer's Study Bible:
2:11 Elijah, like Enoch (cf. Gen 5:24), did not taste death. The fiery phenomenon was some type of theophany through which Elijah was translated immediately into the heavenly realm.
Editor: W.A. CRISWELL, PH.D.
Managing Editor: PAIGE PATTERSON, TH.D.
Old Testament Editor: E. RAY CLENDENEN, PH.D.
New Testament Editor: DANIEL L. AKIN, PH. D.
Assistant Editor: MALLORY CHAMBERLIN, PH.D.
Assistant Editor: DOROTHY KELLY PATTERSON, D.MINN.


You may not agree, but it seems quite obvious to me that there really is an inconsistency here, an inconsistency that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient "God" could have, should have, and likely would have precluded had "He" anything to do with the writing of a "Holy Bible" allegedly representing "His word."

--

In closing, keep in mind that you could not possibly know with certainty that Jesus was "right"--unless you were omniscient.

-Don-

While reading through your Biblical Inconsitancy page by Mr. Morgan (I can't remember his first name). I found a slight problem. He stated the whole problem about how Terah, Abraham's Father, died before Abraham left for Haran, but he must not have read the rest of the chapter. Someone needs to read Gen. 11:32. It says that "Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Haran." I just wanted to point that out so that your website could be fixed to support your argument. Thank you.

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback to my Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html).

Here is an exact quote of the inconsistency in question. You will note that I cover GE 11:32.

GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.

You need to take all the referenced verses into account.

I'm afraid I don't see what your are getting at. If I am missing something here, please e-mail me.

-Don-

I'm sorry but if you are going to find contradictions in the bible, the least you can do is quote the bible correctly. The article about How in 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 had the age of Ahaziah as different ages is wrong. The bible CLEARLY stated in both passages that the age that Ahaziah was king was at the age of 22. Just wanted to let the makers of this site change that fact please. Thanks for your time.

[-DM-]

Johny6:

You need to be careful, and do a little in depth research, if you are going to be quite so bold in declaring whatever article you are referring to as mistaken.

There is a problem here. Different versions of "God's Word" have it differently. Here is a sampling:

2 Chronicles 22:1-2

--

42:

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign [KJV]

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign [ASV]

Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign [RSV]

--

22:

Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king [NIV]

Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem [NAB]

Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he ruled one year in Jerusalem [NCV]

--

So which is it?

The fact of the matter is that it is quite clear in the Hebrew:

Forty [H705] and two [H8147] years [H8141] old [H1121] was Ahaziah [274] when he began to reign [H4427]. [Strong's Concordance]

--

Here is the meaning of H705:

H705
Multiple of H702; forty.
[Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries Dictionary]

H705
forty, fortieth, forty's
[Brown-Driver-Brigg's Hebrew Definitions]

H705
from the same as H702; forty:
[New American Standard Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries]

--

What we apparently have here is an attempt (somewhat devious, in my opinion) on the part of some translators of some versions to rectify what was obviously an error on the part of either the original author(s), or later copyist(s), redactor(s) and/or editor(s).

As The New Oxford Annotated Bible puts it, "This is a slightly rewritten version of 2 Kings 8.24b-29 . . . . Forty-two is an error for 'twenty-two.'"

Such should not be the case in a work inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God."

--Don--

I am a Christian, but, oddly, I acknowledge some contradictions in the Bible. Moreover, it should be known that several books in the Old Testament, including 1 Samuel through 2 Chronicles inclusive, were written as histories of the kings of Israel and Judah, _never_ intended to be part of the Bible. They were put into the Bible by a committee of priests some eight hundred years after those were compiled.

Many Christians will claim that God wrote the Bible using various people almost as a pen. However, the authors of the Bible were guided, not controlled, by God. They did the best they could, but considering the inaccuracies in today's media, it is surprising that their accounts of the same events match so precisely. To counter the reverse argument, that they must have been fictional and written cooperatively, there are enough contradictions that this is unlikely.

Many atheists use an argument surrounding Genesis 1 and 2 and the order of creation. They look and see that God created the animals, then man; and later they see that God created the animals while the first man was watching. Tell me this: if God had the power to create animals in the first place, create the whole universe, why did He suddenly lose this ability after creating humans?

Another large problem atheists have concerning God is whether He is God of war or peace. If He holds the power of war in His hand, how can you not say that He is God of peace? Controlling war is the same as controlling peace, for withholding war brings peace.

Something surprising that I found was people thinking that the Bible claims there is some sort of support for heaven and earth. The foundations of the earth would not be beneath it in some direction--they would be in the center. And if you hang the world from nothing, as Job 26:7 says, then you get a situation much like the Roman Catholic Church denied for a long time, that is, that the earth orbits the sun according to the laws of physics. And if heaven has pillars, as Job 26:11 claims, need they be holding it up? Besides, God removed Himself from the earth. Heaven is, for all intents and purposes, another universe, not, as many believe, space, the place where stars and galaxies are.

As for the Sermon on the Mount and the supposedly corresponding section in Luke 6, it is pretty clear that these are two different sermons. You claim that, first, the location of each is different, and, second, that the content is different.

Myself, I think that the apostle Paul had some strange ideas. He also had some wonderful messages that apply to life today. And does it matter to my religion whether Jehoiachin was eight years old or eighteen when he began his reign, or whether he ruled for three months or got an additional ten days?

I see a few contradictions in the Bible, whereas you see many. I see a Bible somewhat slimmer than that which you see, and I have an interesting corollary in the history books. Your problem, I think, is that you take a statement that the Bible is completely true in everything it says (something I cannot find in my Bible, which says instead that all Scripture is useful) and try to make that the core belief of Christianity. It's not. The core belief is that the available forgiveness from Jesus Christ can save people from hell and give them a place in heaven.

One final remark: if you are going to provide this list, you could make the format a bit more legible and perhaps fix some Biblical references that do not refer to the cited passages.

[-DM-]

Gareis:

It would be helpful in providing a meaningful response had you supplied the article title and author (or URL). As it is, I can only guess as to which article it is that you have in mind.

Originally posted by &lt;Gareis&gt;:
I am a Christian, but, oddly, I acknowledge some contradictions in the Bible.Most Christians do. Biblical inerrantists make up a fairly small percentage of those who call themselves "Christians."

Moreover, it should be known that several books in the Old Testament, including 1 Samuel through 2 Chronicles inclusive, were written as histories of the kings of Israel and Judah, _never_ intended to be part of the Bible.That any books were ever intended--or not intended--to be part of a Bible is something that cannot be known with certainty. My take on it, however, is that none of the individual books which are now included in the Bible were written with any foreknowledge that they would be included in a collection of books such as the Bible.

They were put into the Bible by a committee of priests some eight hundred years after those were compiled.More or less, but not exactly.

Clear evidence of a canon appears in the 2nd half of the 2nd century, but not all of the books which are now part of the canon had then been decided upon in any one church.

By the 3rd century, the majority of the books which make up the present canon were known and given canonical status, although there still remained some uncertainty with regard to some books and some which are now considered apocryphal were then included.

The 4th century saw the fixation of canon as we now know it in the West, specifically, the Council of Carthage, AD 397.

The Council of Trent (1563) fixed the official Roman Catholic canon. The Westminster Assembly (1647) fixed the official Protestant canon. It was at the Council of Jerusalem (1672) that the Greek Orthodox Church finally accepted Revelation.

There were several books used in various of the very early churches which are not now part of the official canon. For example, Irenaeus accepted Hermas as scripture. Eusebius acknowledged four "Gospels": Acts, the Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John -- but disputed James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and questioned the authenticity of Revelation. Tertullian affirmed Enoch. The writings of the Early Church Fathers reflected very little of the so-called synoptic Gospels.

Some books (e.g. James, 2nd Peter, etc.) remained in dispute even as late as Martin Luther.

--
Martin Luther (1483-1546) - German Protestant leader had this to say about the book of James:
"The Epistle of James is no truly apostolic epistle. ... St. James is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel in it. ... I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. ... Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool. ... We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg]."
--

Many Christians will claim that God wrote the Bible using various people almost as a pen. However, the authors of the Bible were guided, not controlled, by God.You are stating a belief as if it were fact. My belief is that no god ever had anything to do with the writing of a book.

They did the best they could, but considering the inaccuracies in today's media, it is surprising that their accounts of the same events match so precisely.There is so much discrepancy in the various details of important events between one account and the next that it seems obvious to me that no perfect, omnipotent, and loving god could possibly have had anything to do with the writing of the Bible.

To counter the reverse argument, that they must have been fictional and written cooperatively, there are enough contradictions that this is unlikely.Assuming that you are correct, that there are contradictions in the Bible, two important points can be made:
1) the Bible is therefore untrustworthy in terms of its accuracy, and
2) inspiration by a perfect, omnipotent, and loving "God" is lacking.

Many atheists use an argument surrounding Genesis 1 and 2 and the order of creation. They look and see that God created the animals, then man; and later they see that God created the animals while the first man was watching. Tell me this: if God had the power to create animals in the first place, create the whole universe, why did He suddenly lose this ability after creating humans?Whether I or anyone else could or could not answer your question would prove nothing whatsoever about the existence of inconsistencies between the two creation stories in genesis. These are two different creation stories from two different authors which have been rather clumsily conflated into one and about which numerous articles--and even whole books--have been written. [See The Two Creation Stories in Genesis (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877730539/InternetInfidels) by James S. Forrester-Brown.]

Another large problem atheists have concerning God is whether He is God of war or peace. If He holds the power of war in His hand, how can you not say that He is God of peace? Controlling war is the same as controlling peace, for withholding war brings peace.You have created something of a straw man here. In any case, there seems to be quite a noticeable inconsistency between the "God" of the Old Testament (OT) and the "God" of the New Testament (NT).

--
GE 4:15, DT 32:4, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming
fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous
god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7
The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8,
17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes
fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ...
The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came
from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning
coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath
for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the
fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and
rocks are thrown down by him."
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
--

Something surprising that I found was people thinking that the Bible claims there is some sort of support for heaven and earth. The foundations of the earth would not be beneath it in some direction--they would be in the center. And if you hang the world from nothing, as Job 26:7 says, then you get a situation much like the Roman Catholic Church denied for a long time, that is, that the earth orbits the sun according to the laws of physics. And if heaven has pillars, as Job 26:11 claims, need they be holding it up? Besides, God removed Himself from the earth. Heaven is, for all intents and purposes, another universe, not, as many believe, space, the place where stars and galaxies are.You are again stating your beliefs as if they were fact. I would venture to say that, if there were such a place as the heaven described in the Bible, no one could possibly know "where" it is. but given that the city of New Jerusalem allegedly is about 1500 miles square [RE 21:16] and will be inhabited by 144,000 virgin men (only?) [RE 14:1-4], it would need to occupy physical space somewhere.

As for the Sermon on the Mount and the supposedly corresponding section in Luke 6, it is pretty clear that these are two different sermons. You claim that, first, the location of each is different, and, second, that the content is different.Interesting, isn't it, that the two authors, "Matthew" and "Luke," describe different sermons and that, given the importance of the so-called Sermon on the Mount, that none of the other Gospel authors--nor Paul--seem to have heard of it?

Myself, I think that the apostle Paul had some strange ideas.I agree, but I go a step further. According to the biblical authors, Jesus, Paul, and the "God" of the Bible--all--had some strange ideas.

He also had some wonderful messages that apply to life today. And does it matter to my religion whether Jehoiachin was eight years old or eighteen when he began his reign, or whether he ruled for three months or got an additional ten days?My opinion is that it should matter. After all, if you cannot trust what the Bible says about seemingly small matters, what reason is there to trust what it says about more important matters?

I see a few contradictions in the Bible, whereas you see many. I see a Bible somewhat slimmer than that which you see, and I have an interesting corollary in the history books. Your problem, I think, is that you take a statement that the Bible is completely true in everything it says (something I cannot find in my Bible, which says instead that all Scripture is useful) and try to make that the core belief of Christianity. It's not. The core belief is that the available forgiveness from Jesus Christ can save people from hell and give them a place in heaven.You are entitled to your beliefs, of course. But then so are Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc., etc. Any Believer can concentrate on the "core beliefs" and ignore what would otherwise be troubling. My take on it is that a perfect, omnipotent, and loving "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had "He" anything to do with the inspiration of a book such as the Bible; for a perfect, omnipotent, and loving "God" to inspire a book which is as problematic as is the Bible would be irresponsible and reprehensible.

One final remark: if you are going to provide this list, you could make the format a bit more legible and perhaps fix some Biblical references that do not refer to the cited passages.Someone would first need to provide a list of which passages do not refer to the cited passages and what it is that needs to be made more legible.

-Don-

Just took a look at all the contradictions in the Bible. Nice Job whoever wrote it.

Now do one on the Koran! Please?!

[-DM-]

If you are talking about my Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html), thank you very much! I think that I did a pretty good job in that I tried to make the list as complete and accurate a list as one is likely to find. Of course not everyone agrees with you or me. I received an e-mail a few days ago stating that 90% are hogwash and that the whole list should be thrown out. I'm sure that the truth is that the list has at least some merit. The way that I see it, a perfect and omnipotent "God" surely could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had "He" anything to do with the inspiration of a book such as the Bible.

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. As you discovered (and mentioned in a subsequent post) we do have a section on the Koran (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/).

Regarding Donald Morgan's Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html).

The standard apologetic that the genealogy recorded in Luke is actually Mary's lineage even though it says it's Joseph's strikes me as being rather desperate. However, since it's such a glaring inconsistency, what were the "powers that be" who decided which books were the word of God and which weren't thinking when they seen this? Did they have apologetics even back then? If they did I wonder if anybody tried to argue that either Matthew or Luke shouldn't be canonized and this problem was used as evidence but was ultimately voted down. The same question applies to all the inconsistencies to be found in the gospels I guess.

What is known about the criteria used to decide which books were "actually" the "word of God" and which weren't?

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback regarding my Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html).

--

Regarding the alleged geneaologies of Jesus as given by Matthew and Luke, the "explanation" that one traces Jesus' ancestry through Joseph and the other through Mary is a typical, apologetic, ad hoc, how-it-might-have-been scenario which attempts to explain what is--to many scholars and apologists alike--an obvious problem in the genealogies as presented in Matthew vs. Luke. [See Any Loophole Will Do (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2any93.html) by Farrell Till.]

These genealogies simply do not agree, and for the following reasons the differences cannot be adequately explained with the hypothesis that Luke traces Mary's side while Matthew traces Joseph's side:
1) the two genealogies meet at some points,
2) both list only male names,
3) only the father's seed was thought to generate life,
4) the mother's contribution was thought of as merely that of an incubator in which the father's seed was gestated, the ovum being unknown at the time, and
5) Jesus' seed was allegedly that of God's Holy Spirit, not Joseph.
[See p. 458, The New Bible Dictionary; p. 3030, Historical Introduction to the New Testament, by Robert M. Grant; p. 149, "Is That in the Bible?" by Dr. Charles Francis Potter; p. 85, "Jesus--An Historian's Review of the Gospels," by Michael Grant.]

There is yet another problem: Matthew 1:17 states that there are fourteen generations from Abraham to David, from David to the Exile, and from the Exile to Jesus. If we number consistently, this is simply untrue. Not only that, Matthew leaves out three between Joram and Azariah [see 1 Chronicles 3:11-12] but has only two between Hezron and Nahshon (where Luke has three).

These two genealogies are simply too inconsistent to be reconciled or believed.

It should be noted, too, that Jesus himself had nothing to do with these kinds of genealogies. Attempts to declare him David's son were attempts that he did not take seriously.

In actuality, Jesus' origins are thoroughly obscure and he himself did little or nothing to cast any light on the subject. [See pp. 65-66, "Jesus in Bad Company" by Adolf Holl.]

--

Regarding the Canon of the Bible, there is no simple answer with regard to how and when it was decided which books truly belonged in the collection of canonical books, which books truly reflected inspiration by "God."

The determination of the official canon was a long-term process and although the Church is fond of promoting the idea that what is now considered canonical was always the case, the facts are a bit different.

It was not until the 2nd half of the 2nd century that clear evidence of a canon appears, but not all of the books which are now part of the canon had then been decided upon in any one church.

By the 3rd century, the majority of the books which make up the present canon were known and given canonical status although there still remained some uncertainty with regard to some books and some which are now considered apocryphal were then included.

The 4th century saw the fixation of canon as we now know it in the West, specifically, the Council of Carthage, AD 397.

It was not until the Council of Trent (1563) the official Roman Catholic canon was fixed nor until the Westminster Assembly (1647) that the official Protestant canon was fixed. It was at the Council of Jerusalem (1672) that the Greek Orthodox Church finally accepted Revelation.

There were several books used in various of the very early churches which are not now part of the official canon. For example, Irenaeus accepted Hermas as scripture. Eusebius acknowledged four "Gospels": Acts, the Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John -- but disputed James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and questioned the authenticity of Revelation. Tertullian affirmed Enoch. The writings of the Early Church Fathers reflected very little of the so-called synoptic Gospels.

Some books (e.g. James, 2nd Peter, etc.) remained in dispute even as late as Martin Luther.
Martin Luther, (1483-1546) - German Protestant leader:
The Epistle of James is no truly apostolic epistle. ... St. James is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel in it. ... I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. ... Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool. ... We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg].

The Gospels are pseudepigraphal works; the documents do not actually carry the names of their authors and, in fact, the current names were assigned to those documents after the fact. Part of the impetus was to give the Gospels an air of authenticity or authority so as to make them more useful in combating heresies that were cropping up. We know today, of course -- or at least we think we know -- that not a one of the Gospels was actually written by a disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his so-called ministry.

Regards,
--Don--

I've just been reading your list of Biblical inconisistancies and so far I have not found one. The inconisistancies you claim exist only appear when you have an incomplete knowledge of the gospel, of Old Testament theology and of the person and nature of God, and when you take verses out of context, as you have done in practically every instance. I also realised whilst reading that most people visiting this site would not bother to check the actual scripture verses and thereby see for themselves that the inconsistancies simply do not exist. They would just take you on your word. This is harmful. I implore you to take down your website. Can I also just say that America is not a vengeful Christian nation (I'm not American by the way so I'm not just defending my country). America is a vengeful nation which claims to be Christian but is not. Anyone who sees its actions should know that.
That's all I can find words for.
I hope you'll take a better look at things and life in general.
Best wishes and Christ's love
Saskia

[-DM-]

I've just been reading your list of Biblical inconisistancies [sic] and so far I have not found one.

I hope that you also read the disclaimer at the top of the page while you were there, quote:

--

"NOTE: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations--after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired."

--

The inconisistancies [sic] you claim exist only appear when you have an incomplete knowledge of the gospel, of Old Testament theology and of the person and nature of God, and when you take verses out of context, as you have done in practically every instance.

Actually, you have it backwards. It is only when one takes these verses out of the context of the whole Bible, when one has an incomplete knowledge of the Gospel and the context of the day, an incomplete knowledge of Old and New Testament theology and of the person and nature of the "God" of the Bible--that one cannot see that at least some of these alleged inconsistencies are truly inconsistencies.

For example, when you realize that two different creation stories--stories (which disagree about the order of creation)--from two different authors are responsible for the inconsistencies at the beginning of my list, to whit:

--

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

--

. . . then you begin to realize why those inconsistencies exist.

I also realised whilst reading that most people visiting this site would not bother to check the actual scripture verses and thereby see for themselves that the inconsistancies [sic] simply do not exist. They would just take you on your word. This is harmful. I implore you to take down your website. Can I also just say that America is not a vengeful Christian nation (I'm not American by the way so I'm not just defending my country). America is a vengeful nation which claims to be Christian but is not. Anyone who sees its actions should know that.
That's all I can find words for.
I hope you'll take a better look at things and life in general.
Best wishes and Christ's love
Saskia

My suggestion for you is that you need to educate yourself, as I finally did back when I myself was a Christian. You need to look into "the other side of the story," to learn how the Bible really came about, to learn about the problems inherent in the Bible (and in Christian theology).

Suggested reading to get you started on a road of discovery, a fascinating journey, with regard to the Bible:

Babylonian Genesis, The (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226323994/internetinfidels); Alexander Heidel, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1963

Birth of the Gospel, The; William Benjamin Smith, Philosophical Library, New York, 1957

Case Against Christianity, The (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566390818/internetinfidels); Michael Martin, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1991

Documents for the Study of the Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0800628098/internetinfidels); David R. Cartlidge & David L. Dungan, William Collins Publishers, New York, 1980

Gospel Fictions (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879755725/InternetInfidels); Randel Helms, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, 1988

Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis; Robert Graves & Raphael Patai, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1966

Historical Approach to the Bible, The (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0914384023/internetinfidels); Howard M. Teeple, Religion and Ethics Institute, Evanston, Illinois, 1982

Historical Introduction to the New Testament, A; Robert M. Grant, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1972

Is that in the Bible?; Dr. Charles F. Potter, Fawcett Books, Greenwich, Connecticut

Is the Bible True? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/088344948X/internetinfidels); David Robert Ord & Robert B. Coote, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1994

Jesus--An Historian's Review of the Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684818671/internetinfidels); Michael Grant, Charles Scribner's and Sons, New York, 1977

Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, The; Howard M. Teeple, Religion and Ethics Institute, Evanston, Illinois, 1974

Myth of God Incarnate, The; Ed. John Hick, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1977

Nature and Origin of the New Testament, The; J. Merle Rife, Philosophical Library, New York, 1975

New Oxford Annotated Bible, The (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195283554/internetinfidels); Ed. Bruce M. Metzger & Roland E. Murphy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1991

Noah's Ark Nonsense, The; Howard M. Teeple, Religion and Ethics Institute, Evanston, Illinois, 1978

Origins of Christianity, The (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198262078/internetinfidels); Schuyler Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, 1984

Origins of Christianity, The (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879753080/internetinfidels); R. Joseph Hoffman, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1985

Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall & Original Sin; F. R. Tennant, Schoken Books, New York, 1968

Two Creation Stories in Genesis, The; James S Forrester-Brown, Shambhala, Berkeley, California, 1974

What the Bible Really Says (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068801979X/internetinfidels); Manfred Barthel, William Morrow and Company, New York, 1982

Where is Noah's Ark?; Lloyd R. Bailey, Festival Books, Nashville, 1978

Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/internetinfidels); Richard Elliot Friedman, Harper and Row, New York, 1989

--

You will find that these authors typically reference many other sources of information.

[redraven]

This is concerning Biblical Inconsistencies by Donald Morgan.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml

Mr. Morgan says in his article that in Mark 1:2 Jesus quotes a statement that he says appears Isaiah. He then says no such statement appears in Isaiah. But he is incorrect it does. It is Isaiah 40:3. Mr. Morgan might want to look into this. If he is incorrect and I believe he is he might want to correct this error and remove it from his list.

Thank you

Mike

[-DM-]

Mike:

Thank you for your feedback to my Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml).

--

Abbreviations used:

IS Isaiah
MA Malachi
MK Mark

--

The verses in question from the NASB:

MK 1.2-3: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;"

IS 40.3: A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God."

--

Discussion:

1) Inasmuch as quotation marks are placed around the alleged quote in MK 1.2, Jesus is allegedly quoting Isaiah word for word, but MK 2.1 is simply not an equivalent word-for-word quote of IS 40.3, and that is true (in my opinion) even if we allow for the differences between the Hebrew of Isaiah and the Greek of Mark.

2) MA 3.1 fits much better with MK 1.2 than does IS 40.3.

MA 3.1: Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me.

3) A more literal translation of the Greek of MK 1.2 reads: "as it is written in the prophets," not "as it is written in Isaiah" or "as the prophet Isaiah wrote" as do the subject version(s) I had in mind when I was compiling my "Inconsistencies." Thus the problem here may be a result of improper translation, making Jesus say something ("Isaiah" rather than "prophets") that he did not actually say.

Regards,
-Don-

[squashai]

The writer of this page, Donald Morgan, is an idiot:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml

Okay.. Why the hell would anyone in their right mind want to find "inconsistincies" in the Bible, anyway? Does he have something to prove?

None of those are valid points; they can all be disproven. Idiots just LOVE wasting valuble space with their innane notions. I hate them all. Why would someone waste valueble time doing this? That's like, going to school and getting straight F's, but being proud of it. Or brushing your teeth while eating.

WHAT'S THE BLOODY POINT??

[-DM-]

Originally posted by squashai

Okay.. Why the hell would anyone in their right mind want to find "inconsistincies" [sic] in the Bible, anyway? Does he have something to prove?

WHAT'S THE BLOODY POINT?? The "bloody point" is obvious even to an idiot like me--which doesn't say a lot for you, really, especially given that both the Introduction.... (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.shtml) (did you read it?) and the "NOTE" at the top of the Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml) page (did you read it?) state the point, but I'll reiterate it for you here:

BIBLICAL INCONSISTENCIES
Compiled by Donald Morgan

NOTE: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations--after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired.

Introduction
Next to last paragraph

The evidence which follows, taken from the Bible itself, is but a small portion of that which exists. This evidence demonstrates that the Bible cannot be the literal, complete, inerrant and perfect work of a perfect and loving God. It also demonstrates that the Bible is not especially useful even as a guidebook. In addition, because the Bible reflects every important belief of traditional Christianity--the foundation of Christianity itself rests on shaky ground.
Originally posted by squashai
None of those are valid points; they can all be disproven. Idiots just LOVE wasting valuble [sic] space with their innane [sic] notions. I hate them all. Why would someone waste valueble [sic] time doing this? That's like, going to school and getting straight F's, but being proud of it. Or brushing your teeth while eating.No, they cannot "all be disproven." Although a few individuals have made such a claim, no one has yet succeeded in doing so.

What apologists typically do is to provide ad hoc how-it-might-have-been scenarios which offer possible explanations for some inconsistencies; they disprove nothing, however.

It is not enough to offer such possible explanations, rather it is necessary to show why those explanations should be believed rather than that a perfect and omnipotent "God" should not and would not inspire something so riddled with inconsistencies. After all, we wouldn't say that a carpenter was perfect if his work was not--especially if he were omnipotent.

-Don-
(the idiot who began college at the age of sixteen and graduated on the honor roll in 3&1/2 years)

[Peter Kirby]

The writer of this page, Donald Morgan, is a genius:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.shtml

The first paragraph reads: "The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.--more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include an additional twelve books known as the Apocrypha.)"

You can read the canon of 397 here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). This canon includes deuterocanonical books such as the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and 1 & 2 Maccabees. So the Council of Carthage mentioned did not ratify a canon with the same thirty-nine books in the Protestant Old Testament.

Also, Catholics would number the deuterocanonical books as 7, with a total of 73 instead of 66. But I do know how you got twelve: three are additions to Daniel, one is the additions to Esther, and one is the Letter of Jeremiah appended to Baruch. It only seems right, however, to follow the numbering that Catholics give for their canon, and to say "Catholic Bibles include seven other books as well as expansions to Daniel and Esther."

OK, now I have a question: would the Infidels library be interested in a compilation of errors and discrepancies in the Catholic Deuterocanon?

best,
Peter Kirby

[-DM-]

Hello Peter,

The Council of Carthage (as I know that you know) was really only the beginning in a long process of determining which books were considered to be considered canonical. To some extent, there was still argument going on in Luther's time (given his remarks about the book of James). Regarding the number of books in the so-called Apocrypha, I was simply counting what I found in a typical Catholic Bible (although there is sometimes some variation even there). Keep in mind that my "Introduction" is greatly simplified. Perhaps I should revise it to make it more scholarly.

In any case, yes, of course the Secular Web would be interested in publishing a compilation of errors and discrepancies in the Catholic Deuterocanon. Please see the Submission Guidelines (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/submit.shtml).

-Don-

For Donald Morgan,

On your inconsistencies page you mention the following as two inconsistent statements:

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

If you read the first verse, it clearly says that Adam would "surely die" if he ate the fruit, and not "the very day". Essentially, for you to interpret surely as same day, you are repeating Satan's first lie to Eve.

You have quite a few inconsistencies on your page that are legitimate, although insignificant. But this one, as with others, has signficant meaning if interpreted wrong.

I think your cursory reading of the Bible is typical of someone reading without searching for meaning. For if you were looking for meaning, you would be able to disprove most of your inconsistencies by reading the verses that come before and after your quoted verses.

To respond, email me at xxxx, as I probably won't visit this chat line again.

Isaac

[E-mail address deleted. -DM-]

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Casual Browser
this is a test Perhaps you didn't notice that this is a fully moderated forum, meaning that no submissions are posted until approved by the forum moderator (me). See the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10).

Originally posted by Casual Browser
If you read the first verse, it clearly says that Adam would "surely die" if he ate the fruit, and not "the very day". Essentially, for you to interpret surely as same day, you are repeating Satan's first lie to Eve.None of the Bible versions that I have on my computer agree with you; all of them agree with me. Here is GE 2.17 from those versions on my computer:

KJV: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

NKJV: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

ASV: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

NASB: "From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

NRSVA: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

YLT: "Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.

RSV: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

You have quite a few inconsistencies on your page that are legitimate, although insignificant. But this one, as with others, has signficant [sic] meaning if interpreted wrong.They have significant meaning when interpreted correctly given that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and very likely would have seen to it that any book which "He" inspired were not so riddled with errors, inconsistencies, absurdities, anachronisms, and other problems.

I think your cursory reading of the Bible is typical of someone reading without searching for meaning.I think you have it backwards. It is believers who tend to read the Bible in a cursory, make-it-fit-my-beliefs fashion.

Keep in mind that I was once a born-again, Bible-believing, evangelical Christian myself. It was only because of my intense study of the Bible that I began to notice the kinds of problems which I have detailed.

Certainly your reading in this instance was cursory given that you either skipped over the salient words, or else you checked only one, or a very few, version(s) where those words were missing in the translation. And by the way, those important words are there in the Hebrew manuscript(s) from which we get our translations.

For if you were looking for meaning, you would be able to disprove most of your inconsistencies by reading the verses that come before and after your quoted verses.Many others before you who have said essentially the same thing, but none has succeeded in doing so. In fact, it is ONLY when you take the Bible in the context of the whole that its many problems become noticeable.

To respond, email me at xxxx, as I probably won't visit this chat line again.1) It isn't a chat line, rather it is a discussion forum.
2) So that all can see, I respond in the Feedback forum to feedback submitted to the Feedback forum.

-Don-

Hey Don,

Just wanted to clear up this issue. The dude that wrote the message you responed to provided a really weak argument. You, a non-Christian, clearly provided more knowledge about that verse than an advocate of the Bible. Its great that you showed all the different translations, that is a model of what should be done. However, the reason why we call what we read 'translations' is because that is just what they are. They are translations of an original writing. The original writing was in Hebrew, as you probably know. The Hebrew word for day as used in Gen 2:17 is the word Yowm (pronounced yome). This word, yowm, is used to describe a variety of things that relate to time. It was commonly used to describe what we call days, years, and lifetimes. Yowm was even used in the Hebrew language to describe the temporal (yesterday, today, and tomorrow).

In a word for word translation from Hebrew to English, we lose the insight that the original laguage held. This is why we can look to paraphrases for additional (and, many times, correct) insight. The NLT says that "if you eat of this fruit, you will surely die." It has no mention of the word 'day'. This is because that is what the original message intended. What this verse means is that death will come within the lifetime of a human, not the very day. Some may say, "Duh, all humans die in their lifetimes." Good point. But at that time, death was not something known to Adam. All he knew was unending life, according to the Bible. What Gen 2:17 introduces is the concept of a lifetime that ends. Not, "do this and you will die today."

Asking you to think that the Bible is without error is aking you to also be stupid. There are a lot of questions that are brought about by both word for word, as well as paraphrased, idea based translations. All questions should be brought back to the orginal Hebrew and Greek (also Aramaic).

Thanks for being rational and intelligent, by doing this the truth can always be found.

Peace be to you,
Randy

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Randy:
The reason why we call what we read 'translations' is because that is just what they are. They are translations of an original writing. The original writing was in Hebrew, as you probably know. The Hebrew word for day as used in Gen 2:17 is the word Yowm (pronounced yome). This word, yowm, is used to describe a variety of things that relate to time. It was commonly used to describe what we call days, years, and lifetimes. Yowm was even used in the Hebrew language to describe the temporal (yesterday, today, and tomorrow).1) There are no original copies of any book of the Bible, therefore we cannot translate from the original writings. The best that we can do is to use the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, and bits and pieces of those manuscripts--which involve, unfortunately, quite a bit of variation (20,000+ variations in the New Testament alone).

2) Bible translators of the better translations are experts in their field. If they thought that yowm in this case were meant to be taken as meaning something other than the that same day, they would have translated it as such. By claiming that the word in question should be translated some other way, you are claiming to know better than the translators what that word means.

In a word for word translation from Hebrew to English, we lose the insight that the original laguage held. This is why we can look to paraphrases for additional (and, many times, correct) insight. The NLT says that "if you eat of this fruit, you will surely die." It has no mention of the word 'day'. This is because that is what the original message intended.

What this verse means is that death will come within the lifetime of a human, not the very day. Some may say, "Duh, all humans die in their lifetimes." Good point. But at that time, death was not something known to Adam. All he knew was unending life, according to the Bible. What Gen 2:17 introduces is the concept of a lifetime that ends. Not, "do this and you will die today."yowm is defined as follows:

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term). . . .

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
1) day, time, year
1a) day (as opposed to night)
1b) day (24 hour period)
1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
1b2) as a division of time
1b2a) a working day, a day’s journey
1c) days, lifetime (plural)
1d) time, period (general)
1e) year
1f) temporal references
1f1) today
1f2) yesterday
1f3) tomorrow

1) Your interpretation could be correct, of course, but unless you were omniscient, you would have no certain way of knowing what the original message intended; like the translators, you are making an educated guess.

2) Most translators obviously believed differently than the translator(s) of the NLT--which is generally considered by Bible scholars far from being the best translation available, to put it politely, given that it is a very loose translation often based on Christian apologetics.

3) Note that in the verse in question, GE 2.17, there is no "associated term" which would indicate that the term yowm is not to be taken in the most literal sense to mean "this very day." "You will die" and "death will come into existence, you will die in your lifetime" are not equivalent in meaning, at least not the way that I see it.

4) One of the basic principles of Bible exegesis is that nothing is to be added to or subtracted from the meaning of the words given.

5) If the Bible were truly inspired by a perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent "God," then surely "He" could have, should have, and likely would have seen to it that problems such as this did not exist in a book that "He" inspired.

Asking you to think that the Bible is without error is aking you to also be stupid. There are a lot of questions that are brought about by both word for word, as well as paraphrased, idea based translations. All questions should be brought back to the orginal Hebrew and Greek (also Aramaic).We do not have any original copies of any books of the Bible, therefore there is no possibility that we can go back to the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic.

Thanks for being rational and intelligent, by doing this the truth can always be found.My take on it:

1) Rationality and intelligence are not sufficient to understand the Bible nor the "mind of God"--as the Bible itself points out.

2) Certainly a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have seen to it that such problems in translation and/or interpretation did not exist. If "He" did not foresee such problems, then he could not be omniscient. If "He" could not preclude such problems, then "He" could not be omnipotent. If "He" could have precluded such problems but chose not to do so, then he would be irresponsible, not perfect.

Regards,
-Don-

[Unregistered]

In the part about the creation of the earth, it is stated that Elohim is plural. That is definetly not the case in modern Hebrew (where Elohim is both plural and singular), and it cannot have been in ancient Hebrew, as the verbs carried out by Elohim are singular-male verbs.

Also, the part about the snake eating dust - it really can be viewed as a metaphor for a lowly existence.

Other than that, it's a great list.

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback. It would have been helpful had you supplied the name of the article, the author, or a URL--something to identify the article per the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10) to which your feedback applies given that there is more than one list of Bible contradictions and/or inconsistencies in the Secular Web Library. That way, I would have notified the author of your feedback. He would have appreciated your comment about it being "a great list" and he might have had something better to add than my comments, which follow.

--

'Elohim' is a plural form in the ordinary sense, but it was allegedly used in the case of GE 1 of the supreme God, God of all gods, so to speak.

Regarding the snake eating dust, yes it can be viewed as a metaphor. Almost anything in the Bible can be viewed as a metaphor, of course. Doing so, however, would negate the significance of much of traditional theology.

Regards,
-Don-

[hazel_h]

I have read some of the posts and even the articles here, including the bible inconsistencies and I have to admit it is very disturbing.

Disturbing not is the sense that they are all true but disturbing in a way that not many people comprehend what was written.

Example is the inconsistency on the creation of light and day. In the first day, Genesis stated that God created light and darkness, and on the fourth day, it also stated that God separated light and day. Which brings us to ask, when was night and day reall