This FAQ is an attempt to summarize the contradictions that people often claim are present in the Bible. It is followed by a response from one of our learned contributors, explaining many of them. I feel it necessary to add my own comments to the list, because in many ways the original posting is not as strong an attack as it should have been. It tends to focus on matters of intrepretation, which I believe can be reasonable resolved. I think when most people talk about contradictions they are thinking more of clear factual contradictions. The following are typical examples. I've tried to choose a variety, to give an idea of the kinds of things people have cited: Noah: how many pairs of animals was he told to take into the ark? Gen 6:19-20, and 7:8: one pair Gen 7:2-3, 7 pairs of the ritually clean This is typical of the contradictions that lead people to think there are multiple sources behind the OT historical books. Numbers of people involved in battles: 2 Sam 10:18 (700 chariot drivers) vs 1 Chr 19:18 (7000) Num 25:9 (24000 killed) vs 1 Cor 10:8 (23000) Number and species of entities in the empty tomb: Mat 28: 1 angel, not in tomb, Jesus apparently not there, because it is said he has gone before them to Galilee Mark 16: 1 young man, in tomb, Jesus will see them in Galilee Luke 24: 2 men in bright clothes John 20: 2 angels in tomb, plus Jesus This is only one of many possible examples from the Gospel. It's widely known the Mat, Mark, and Luke are quite parallel. I invite you to sit down and read a couple of chapters in Mark, and then the parallels in Mat and Luke. It doesn't really matter which ones you pick. They all have the same features. The basic account is the same, but the exact words Jesus says are not, and there are various other differing details. Note that our modern translations somewhat misrepresent the nature of the quotations. By putting quotation marks around Jesus' sayings, they give the impression that they are intended to be verbatim. The originals did not have quotations marks, much less Jesus' words in red. The whole modern assumption that quotations represent verbatim transcripts is a result of widespread written history, and more recently, tape recorders. A modern history would be scandalized if he quoted a source and it wasn't exact. But this was impossible in the ancient world. Historians attempted to preserve the sense but not necessarily the exact words. The whole mentality behind quotation marks did not exist, and of course the marks themselves did not either. Inaccurate quotations of the OT: Mat 2:23. The passage he claims to quote does not exist. (Mat seems to quote from memory. This is not the only one he gets wrong.) None of these contradictions is substantial. It causes problems only for people who believe that God guarantees the accuracy of every detail. There are also archaeological and geographical issues, i.e. references to cities that didn't exist at the time, etc. Unfortunately I'm not good enough with that sort of detail to be able to tell which of these make sense. Thus I'm not including any here. As people in this group know, I believe that the Bible is based on accounts by reliable witnesses, but that like any human witnesses (particularly when the accounts have passed through other hands) they are not going to agree on every detail. I note that both Jews and Christians were honest enough to preserve the multiple accounts. In the OT, the accounts are generally woven together by an editor, whereas in the NT, they are separate Gospels. I don't say that this was done specifically to provide 20th Cent. critics with the ability to assess the amount of variation among the sources. But at least it indicates that the editors did not pretend that they had agreement where their sources did not agree. Many critics believe that these contradictions weaken the believability of the Bible. Quite to the contrary, I believe they strengthen it. They show us that the editors preserved the variety of evidence available to them, even when it was not in complete agreement. From: markn@ecs.comm.mot.com (DX560 Mark Nowak) Subject: Biblical Contradictions Sender: stc@ecs.comm.mot.com (DX504 Software_Tech Center) Organization: trunking_fixed Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 18:40:39 GMT Thank you all for your submissions to my list of Biblical Contradictions. I know it is far from complete, but I don't have the time to devote any more energy to this project. My original intention in compiling this list was to point out to a fundamentalist friend of mine that he was simply wrong in taking the Bible completely literally. At the time of my posting I did not realize that there were books that already covered this topic. They are listed at the end of this compilation. So without further ado, here's what fell into my mailbox: MN PS I tried to send copies to all who requested them. Some mail did bounce back. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The most famous contradiction is the "Conflicting Genealogies of Jesus" found in Matthew and Luke. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The one that sticks out so much for me as a Lutheran is the general tone of Romans (justification by faith) and James (salvation by works). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would suggest classifying them into different categories: (1) direct "spelled out" contradictions like the final directions from the Jesus that Mary saw at the tomb; they differ in one of the Gospels (Luke). (2) Message contradictions; like "get married" and be "celibate"; and (3) theological inconsistencies: like the tremendous differences between the God and the devil of the Old Testament and the GOD and the devil of the new one! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judging 1 Cor 3:15 " The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV) 1 Cor 4:5 " Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God." Good deeds Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV) Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Being at school at the moment I can't recall the chapters in Acts, however, toward the beginning of Acts and toward the end the conversion of Paul is recounted. Paul was one to have put forth a great deal of effort in persecuting Christ's following but received a heavenly manifestation while traveling with some others. In the first account it is said that those with Paul heard the messenger but could not see him (or vice versa) and in the second account it is reversed -- saw but did't hear (or vice versa). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I recall there is a contradiction in Titus but I don't remember the exact verse. To paraphrase, it says, "Cretians always lie, this is true because a Cretian said so." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- there are too many. the posting would be a multi-volume book. also, there are several different levels of contradiction: - internally inconsistent (genesis chapters 1 and 2) - externally inconsistent (giving modern names to cities before they were renamed, e.g., calling Petersburg Stalingrad before 19xx) - contextual inconsistency (Moses supposedly wrote the first 5 books, so how can he refer to his own death in the past tense?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about the different accounts of Judas and the Field of Blood? One is in Matthew (27:9??) and the other around Acts 1:19. In one, Judas buys the field, and dies when his guts burst open, and the field is called 'field of blood' because of that. In the other, Judas gives the money back to the Jews, who cant keep the money because it is 'blood money'. They buy a potter's field with the money; it is called 'field of blood' because it was bought with blood money. Judas hangs himself, instead of bursting open. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've always found Genesis chapter 1 and 2 a good place to start. The order of the creation of animals, man, etc doesn't jive between the two chapters. If you go back to the older texts in hebrew and greek, you will notice that one of the chapters refers to god as Yaweh and the other uses Elohim. The translations that I've heard for Elohim mean more a pantheon of gods than a single 'being'. Of course, the Catholic church can use the trinity concept to explain that away. Yaweh, on the other hand does seem to translate to a proper name of a singular being. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Between the thick lines are Loren Petrich's "Biblical Satanic Verses." I don't consider all of the statements to be contradictions, but I don't feel like editing today. MN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I think that it would be helpful to consider how the Bible bangers would react to much of the contents of the Bible, if they judged the Bible by the same standard that they judge other books. I know that this posting may look like like an anti-Bible hatchet job, but when those who blindly worship the Bible indulge in similar hatchet jobs on whatever they do not like, then it is only fair to present them with what may be taken as an anti-Bible hatchet job. Some of the indictments I make here are for things I myself do not consider wicked; but those I criticize would certainly consider them wicked, and that is what counts. I call what is to come my "Biblical Satanic Verses" because they might seem wicked to many people. ********** Individual, Sexual, and Family Conduct ********** Nudity -- (Genesis 2) In that garden in Eden, a.k.a. the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were naked. (1 Samuel 19:24) King Saul strips naked and "prophesies" before Samuel. To someone who does not like the thought of nudity, these may be taken as glorifications of nudity -- that being nude is being like that primordial couple and that stripping naked will help one receive messages from God himself. "Indecent exposure" -- (Genesis 9) When Noah drank some wine, he got drunk and let his "nakedness" (King James translation) show. Ham got a sight of that and told his two brothers. They cover him up, carefully looking the other way. An angry Noah curses Ham and his innocent son Canaan. (Exodus 20:26) One should not climb upon an altar, because one would then expose oneself to it. Though concern with this question is much like concern with what a Scotsman wears under his kilt, it will be relevant later on when considering whether or not women may wear pants. Dirty dancing(?) -- (2 Samuel 11) David watches Bathsheba bathe and falls in love with her. Possible bad example -- David wanting Bathsheba and getting her husband Uriah killed; in all fairness, the prophet Nathan made him repent of this tacky action. Incest -- The children of Adam and Eve, the first two people (according to the second creation story), had to practice incest in order to produce children of their own. (Genesis 19:32) Lot's daughters want to produce some heirs, so they make him drunk each night and have sex with him. They become the ancestors of the Ammonites and the Moabites, two groups of people considered very wicked. Sexual exploitation(?) -- (Genesis 19) Lot wants to protect two angels from some of the wicked men of Sodom, telling them that they can have his two virgin daughters but not the angels. The angels, however, don't need that kind of help -- they strike the men blind. Why didn't they tell him in advance, so he does not have to consider letting his daughters be gang-raped? And why does he not break down in tears thereafter when he considers what he had thought of? Sexual suggestiveness (Bible porn?) -- the whole Song of Solomon. [it has actually been banned as pornographic when printed separately from the Bible (Vern and Bonnie Bullough: _Sin, Sickness, and Sanity: A History of Sexual Attitudes_)] Just Say No To All Sex (a logical consequence of Bible-banger opposition to sexuality) -- (1 Corinthians 7:1, 7:8) Paul became celibate, and recommended that course of action for even those who are married. On marriage, Paul recommended that as a safety valve for those who could not manage celibacy -- he was obsessed with the supposed wickedness of "fornication" (Greek _porneia_; properly "prostitution"). Jesus Christ recommends removing parts of one's body that lead one astray (Matthew 5:29-30); and even states that (Matthew 19:12), along with natural-born eunuchs and those made that way by other people, that "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven". Thus, we have a "Final Solution of the Sexuality Question" -- that one should castrate oneself. He evidently revoked the Old Testament on this subject, which states (Deuteronomy 13:1) that a man who has been castrated or has had his penis cut off cannot be a proper member of the community. Absence of Reference to Masturbation (mentioned because Bible bangers tend to despise this act, even though even many of them perform it) -- Nowhere does the Bible mention masturbation; Onan, that famous alleged masturbator, had not masturbated at all, but had pulled it out. This is significant because there is no shortage of denunciations of sexual mischief in the Bible, with the death penalty being prescribed in many cases. Anti-family -- It is most likely that Jesus Christ never married. He was a wandering religious prophet, living off the charity of his friends and followers. There is no mention of his wife, if he had been married; the poor woman (if there ever was such a one) seems ignored. He proclaimed (Matthew 10:35-37) that he was going to come and set son against father, daughter against mother, and daughter-in-law against mother-in law, and that whoever loves father or mother than him is not worthy of him. He also proclaimed (Luke 14:26) that if you do not hate your parents, your brothers and sisters, your wife or husband, or your children, you cannot follow him. His mother? When he was 12 years old, he told her (Luke 2:49) "Don't you know I must be about my Father's business". At Cana, he told her off (John 2:4) "Woman, what have I to do with you?" Elsewhere (Matthew 12:46-50) he ignores his family -- his "real" family is his circle of followers. Anti-divorce (some Bible bangers actually pride themselves on this one) -- Jesus Christ laid down the law that a man cannot divorce a woman unless she has been unfaithful (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9); if they remarry, they effectively commit adultery. In the latter reference, after one of his followers suggests that it may be better not to marry, Jesus Christ makes his remarks about eunuchs. The unfaithfulness exception is absent elsewhere (Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18). He had revoked an Old Testament law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) allowing men to divorce their wives if they so see fit. Child Abuse(?) -- (Proverbs 13:24) -- spare the rod and spoil the child. Polygamy -- David had several concubines, (1 Kings 11:3) King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, (2 Chronicles 11:21) King Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines, and (2 Chronicles 13:21) King Abijah had 14 wives. Surrogate motherhood -- (Genesis 16:1-4) Since Abraham's wife Sarah was barren, she gave Abraham her maid Hagar, to have children for her. She produces a son, Ishmael. There is even surrogate fatherhood (the Levirate). (Genesis 38) Onan refuses to have sex with his brother's widow, and God strikes him with lightning. Obsession with prostitution -- Prostitutes are mentioned so many times in the Bible that its authors seem to reveal a fixation on that activity, a fixation that is evident even in those who denounce it. Sexism (it is hard to get a Bible banger on this one, but some of them vehemently deny being sexist) -- In Genesis 2, Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden just because Eve was conned into eating that fruit by a certain mischievous snake. In one of the "Ten Commandments" (Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21), one is not supposed to desire one's neighbor's land, house, wife, slaves, cattle, donkeys, or anything else of his. Notice how women are lumped in with the rest of a man's property. Jesus Christ was rather rude to his mother at Cana. Paul states that (1 Corinthians 11) women are to be subject to men in the same way that men are subject to God; that women exist for the sake of men, and not men for the sake of women; that men are the image and glory of God, while women are the image and glory of men; and that women should keep their heads covered to indicate that they are under their husbands' authority. Women should wear their hair long in order to cover their heads, while men are to keep their hair short; this is because men are the image and glory of God, while women are the image and glory of men. Also, (1 Corinthians 14:34,35) women are to be silent in church, and should let their husbands instruct them. (1 Timothy 2:11,12) Women are supposed to learn and not teach. (1 Peter 3:1-7) Women should submit to their husbands and should look plain; they should call their husbands their masters, as Sarah had called Abraham. Ethical relativism -- in the Book of Ecclesiastes (3:2-8), we find that there is a time to do one thing and a time to do just the opposite. Anti-materialism -- Jesus Christ's assertions that material wealth is fundamentally worthless, that (Matthew 6;24) "One cannot serve both God and money", that the love of money is the root of all evil, the one ought to "sell everything one has and give the money to the poor", and (Matthew 19:24) "a camel [or rope] is more likely to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man is to enter the Kingdom of God." Those who value the accumulation of wealth will not appereciate such teachings. Opposition to moral condemnation -- Jesus Christ said that one should not pass judgment on others (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-38,41-42), and that one should not call people insulting names (Matthew 5:22). Opposition of displays of piety -- Jesus Christ said that you should not try to impress other people with how pious you are by praying in public (Matthew 5:5-8) and looking sad while fasting (Matthew 5:16-18). This would mean an end to all officially sanctioned prayers, such as in school. Petulance -- (2 Kings 2:23,24) Elisha cursing the children who taunted him about his baldness [we are told that two bears came and killed 42 of them] and (Mark 11:13-20, Matthew 21:19-20) Jesus Christ cursing a certain fig tree because it wasn't in season for figs (we are told that it died the next day [Mark], or that it died immediately [Matthew]). (Matthew 20:12-13, Mark 11:15-17) Jesus Christ drives the moneychangers out of the Temple, declaring that they have turned into "a den of thieves." (Exodus 2:11-16) Moses murders an Egyptian overseer who had murdered an Israelite slave. Not being able to cover up the body or the deed, he fled from Egypt. Note that one of the "Ten Commandments" states: "Do not commit murder" [modern translation]. (Exodus 32:19) As Moses was coming down with the tablets with the Law written on them, he noticed that his people were worshipping a golden calf (really a young bull, a common symbol of strength and fertility). He got so furious that he broke those tablets. Curiously, neither Moses nor God felt too bad about this possibly sacrilegious act -- God made new tablets to replace the old ones. Noah's cursing of Ham qualifies in this department also. Glorification of alcohol consumption -- At the Cana wedding feast, (John 2:1-10) Jesus Christ miraculously turns water into wine. He would certainly be willing to drink it; he is a "wine-drinker" / "drunkard" (depending on what translation you read) (Matthew 11:19). No haircuts or shaving -- One must not cut one's hair on the sides of one's head or trim one's beard (Leviticus 19:27). Food prohibitions -- (Leviticus 11) Pork and shellfish are prohibited. This chapter also states that rabbits are not OK even though they are ruminants (they have the wrong kind of feet), and that of four-legged animals, grasshoppers are OK. [Actually, rabbits do not ruminate and grasshoppers have six legs] A very curious prohibition is (Exodus 23:19) that one should not cook a young sheep or goat in its mother's milk. However, these prohibitions are revoked in the New Testament. Unmotivated proscriptions of mixing -- (Leviticus 19:19) Don't crossbreed livestock, plant two kinds of crop plant in the same field, or wear clothes made from two different kinds of fabric. (Deuteronomy 22:9) One must not plant crops amidst vineyards, (Deuteronomy 22:10) yoke an ox and a donkey together for plowing a field, or (Deuteronomy 22:10) wear clothes with both wool and linen fibers. Cross-dressing forbidden (some Bible bangers actually pride themselves on this one, however) -- (Deuteronomy 22:5) Men and women may not dress in the others' clothes; however, exactly what garments are appropriate for what sex are not specified. Judging from Exodus 20:26, one must conclude that pants are an atypical costume -- it is evident that the people typically wore costumes that allowed a clear view of the genitals from the surface below. In Exodus 28:42-43, we find that the High Priest is to wear linen shorts inside the Holy of Holies, in order not to expose himself to any of the structure. This specification suggests something atypical, and is consistent with the hypothesis of the atypicality of pants. Thus, the Bible states nothing about whether or not it is appropriate for women to wear pants -- because pants are hardly ever mentioned. Additional support can be found in Deuteronomy 25:11-12, which describes an act that is easier without underwear -- a woman grabbing a man's genitals. All one has to do is reach underneath... ********** Social and Political Questions ********** Pacifism -- Isaiah's prophecy that the lion will someday lie down with the lamb, and Jesus Christ's teaching that one must love one's enemies and turn the other cheek. Anti-business -- Jesus Christ driving the moneychangers from the Temple at Jerusalem. His anti-materialism may also qualify. Communism -- (Acts 4:32-35) The early Christians had all things in common, with the property administered by the apostles. Extreme punishments -- (Leviticus 20:10) Adultery is to be punished by death [a penalty still used in Iran], as are homosexual acts (which are "disgusting" or an "abomination") (Leviticus 20:13) and sex acts with an animal (either sex; both human and animal must die) (Leviticus 20:15-16). Also, (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) if two men are fighting and the wife of one grabs the genitals of the other, her hand it to be cut off without pity. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) A rebellious and disobedient son is to be stoned to death. Note also that stoning to death is a commonly prescribed punishment in the Bible. Interestingly, Paul goes even further than the Old Testament; he seemingly implies that death is a punishment for sin in general. Violence (this and the next bit actually contradict the "pacifism" part -- but don't expect consistency from these characters) -- the Bible has almost too many examples to mention. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is especially gory. Genocide -- After concluding that most of humanity is wicked beyond redemption (isn't he capable of reforming anyone?) God decides to slaughter all but 8 of humanity in Noah's Flood. Also, (Deuteronomy 7:12), we learn that the Promised Land is for the Israelites, and not for the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, or the Jebusites; these peoples are to be exterminated without mercy. The Israelites proceed to do just that (according to their own account); they kill (Numbers 21:25, Deuteronomy 2:34) the Amorites of Heshbon, (Numbers 21:34,35) the followers of Og, (Joshua 6) practically all the people of Jericho, (Joshua 10:28-40) all the people of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, and the surrounding landscape, (Judges 1:18-19) the people of Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, (Judges 3:29) 10,000 Moabites, (Judges 1:4) 10,000 Perizzites and Canaanites, (Judges 4:16) "all the hosts of Sisera", (Judges 8:10) 120,000 Midianites, (1 Samuel 14:12,13,20) the Philistines, (1 Samuel 11:11) the Ammonites, (1 Samuel 15:3,7) the Amalekites, etc. etc. etc. About this last, we are told that Samuel found fault with King Saul because he did not try to kill all the sheep and cattle; killing all the people evidently was not enough. There is an interesting exception, we find (Numbers 25:16,17, 31:7,8) that the Israelites were supposed to kill all the men and married women of the Midianites; the unmarried women who have not gone to bed with any man the Israelites can keep for themselves. Such is the "Final Solution of the Canaanite Question". The only justification other than "the land is for us, not for them" that is ever presented is given in Leviticus (which describes none of these great victories), where we are told that they practiced homosexual acts and other wicked things -- right after where it states that male homosexual acts should be punished by death to all participants. Not only Canaanites were to suffer, consider (Psalm 137) a lamentation of being exiled to Babylon, where we learn that "Babylon will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back, who takes your babies and smashes them against a rock." That this activity is contrary to a certain one of the "Ten Commandments" nobody seems to notice. Acceptance of slavery -- All of the Bible takes slavery for granted, and states that slaves should simply obey their masters. (Ephesians 6:5) Slaves are supposed to obey their masters almost as if they were Jesus Christ himself. The only concession in the opposite direction is that masters should be good to their slaves. Elsewhere, (1 Peter 2:13-18) we find that one should simply obey one's superiors, and that's that. Rejection of democracy -- Nowhere in the Bible is an elected leadership featured. The only theory of government featured is the Divine Right of Kings. The Old Testament refers to the Israelite kings as "sons of God" (presumably just adopted) and (Romans 13:1-7) Paul states that all governments are set up by God himself and that virtuous people need not fear getting into trouble. No comment on governments that officially worship "false" gods, such as that of the Roman Empire. It is somewhat surprising that the Bible bangers have not denounced the American Constitution as an act of rebellion against God, since it traces ultimate authority to "we the people" instead of God. Though the Declaration of Independence does mention a God (though not necessarily the one in the Bible), it seems to treat government as a purely human invention, with no direct connection to any deity whatsoever. Significantly, it does not quote the Bible, perhaps because no Bible quotes can be found to justify its position. ********** Textual Questions ********** Greek (pagan) influences -- (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35) The Virgin Birth story was almost certainly inspired by the numerous tales of pagan gods making mortal women pregnant. Even such historical people as Pythagoras, Plato, and Alexander the Great were imagined to have divine paternity -- Apollo for the first two and Zeus for the third. And since Mary was already betrothed to Joseph, if not actually married to him at the time, a miraculous conception must qualify as spiritual fornication / adultery. Babylonian influences -- The story of Noah's Flood appears to have been inspired by some remarkably similar Babylonian flood legends; the long lives of the earlier people in the Bible appear to have been inspired by Babylonian legends of early, long-lived kings. Even the two creation stories appear to have Mesopotamian inspirations; creation story #1 is somewhat similar to the Babylonian creation epic _Enuma elish_, while creation story #2 has some similarities to Sumerian creation stories -- notably the references to an eastern garden and to a woman being referred to as the mother of "life" or a "rib". The two words are similar in Sumerian, making a pun -- a pun which did not translate into Hebrew. Egyptian influences -- the wording of the "Ten Commandments" strongly parallels the wording of parts of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, instructions that one is to be buried with so one may find one's way around in the Next World. At one point, one is to announce that "I did not kill ... I did not steal ... I have not offended god ...", etc. Contradictions -- The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark -- is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem -- a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ'f father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan. The two creation stories: In what order? #1: Sky, earth, ocean, plants, Sun, Moon, and stars, birds and sea animals, land animals, humanity (both sexes). #2: Earth, a garden, first man, various animals, first woman. How orderly? #1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days". #2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. How satisfied? #1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied. #2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. Unstated assumptions -- There are a number of places in the Bible that imply various things that its writers would have taken for granted, but which may not seem so obvious to others. The proscription of cross-dressing is one such thing; there is no hint of what clothing is to be for what sex. Genesis 1 offers another example; there are "evenings", "mornings", and "days" -- all before the Sun was created (whose apparent motions create day and night, mornings and evenings). Genesis 2 contains no mention of the question of whether Adam had been created with (male) genitals, or whether he was given them later. Since God had not originally intended to create Eve, it is a serious question how Adam was supposed to reproduce without the help of a female partner -- if he was to reproduce at all. Unsubstantiated history (this is working from the contents of assorted ancient texts, which the Bible bangers seem to consider very reliable sources of information) -- Judging from the genealogies, Noah's Flood would have taken place about 2400 to 2200 BC. However, there are continuous written records in both Egypt and Mesopotamia at the time (especially in the former); the Egyptian and Mesopotamian scribes kept writing their chronicles through that time as if nothing whatsoever had happened. There is no Egyptian record of the events of the Exodus, had they happened as described in the Bible. The confrontation with the Israelites, the natural disasters, the pursuit of the Israelites, and the drowning of the Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea are all events that could not have escaped the notice of any Egyptian chronicler. Joshua's telling the Sun to stop moving across the sky (Joshua 10:12-14) would have been recorded in numerous chronicles; it allegedly happened around 1200 BC, when there were scribes at work not only in Egypt and Mesopotamia, but also in ancient Turkey and Crete. In the Book of Jonah, we find that Jonah got the people of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh to repent of their sins. This remarkable event is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, or in the chronicles and libraries of Nineveh or any neighboring city. The Star of Bethlehem and the massacre of baby boys ordered by Herod (Matthew 2) are events mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, or by any outside historians, some of whom describe Herod in great detail. There are similar stories surrounding the births of other notable people in antiquity, which are just as convincing. The peculiar census-taking method (Luke 2), which required people to go back to their ancestral villages, is also not mentioned by any other source. It is not a typical method of census-taking (census takers usually track people down at their current residences) and it also would have been needless trouble for census-takers and the people being counted. One conceivable response to criticisms of this sort is that the Bible expresses higher truth than literal history, but those who make this argument should make their views explicit, should not try to defend the Bible as history, and should not complain about criticisms of it as such. History Unsubstantiated Archeologically -- There is little archeological evidence for the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites and the genocide that they, according to their own account, allegedly practiced on the previous inhabitants. So the Israelites may never have practiced this genocide after all. Quotes Out of Context -- The efforts in the New Testament to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah rely on a number of Old Testament quotes, quotes that are typically out of context. Matthew's quote of Isaiah 7:14-16 on the Messiah ignores the fact that Isaiah was referring to some would-be contemporary king. Micah 5:2, which describes the origin of the Davidic dynasty in Bethlehem, is quoted out of context to sound like the prediction of a Messiah. In reference to Herod's massacre of baby boys, Matthew quotes a lament in Jeremiah as a "prophecy"; the original had referred to the exile of Israelites by a conquering king. Hosea 11:1 was used to demonstrate that Jesus Christ would be taken to Egypt and back, even though it was really a complaint about worshipping other gods rather than the one who brought them out of Egypt. Late Writing (from internal evidence; again, especially reliable in a Bible banger's mind, since it is from the Bible itself) -- there is internal evidence that certain parts of the Bible were put together long after the events they (allegedly) described happened. In the first five books (the Pentateuch), traditionally ascribed to Moses, we find several things being described as being true "to this day" and a list of Edomite kings (Genesis 36), some of whom lived after Moses. Moses himself is always described in the third person, and his death and burial (Deuteronomy 34:5-8) are actually described. (Deuteronomy 34:10-12) "There was no prophet like him", we are told, and (Numbers 12:3) "he was the humblest man who ever lived", we are also told. Both statements suggest the work of someone who had plenty of experience with other people who lived after Moses, and neither statement sounds like the self-description of a very humble person. Matthew 27:8 states that a certain field is called "The Field of Blood" -- "to this day" -- an indication that at least one of the Gospels was composed well after Jesus Christ had lived. This line of evidence demonstrates that at least these parts of the Bible are not eyewitness history. ********** Theological Issues and Related Questions ********** Evasions -- After laying down the law that divorce is forbidden, Jesus Christ is asked if it would be better not to marry. He responds with his famous remarks about eunuchs. That does not seem like a direct reply to the question. When confronted with the question of whether one ought to pay taxes using idolatrous coinage, he made the remark (Matthew 21:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26) that one should "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" -- without specifying which belongs to whom. Involvements with evil spirits -- Jesus Christ drove out demon after demon after demon from people possessed with them. In one such episode (Matthew 8:28-54, Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39), he came upon someone possessed with demons, and conversed with these demons through him. Since they knew they were about to be driven out, Jesus Christ let them enter some nearby pigs. These unfortunate animals proceeded to stampede into a nearby lake and drown. Going to mediums (a.k.a. channelers; I mention this because it smacks of the "occult", which Bible bangers tend to hate and fear) -- (1 Samuel 28:7-19) When King Saul was out of luck, getting no answer from dreams, Urim or Thummim, or prophets, he turned to a medium in Endor ("the witch of Endor") for help. Though she was reluctant to help someone who had driven people like her out of Israel, she did what he asked, and brought back the ghost of the prophet Samuel, whom Saul proceeded to consult for advice. Jesus Christ's Sabbath-Breaking -- (Matthew 12:1,2, Mark 2:27) Jesus Christ said that it was OK to pluck grain on the Sabbath if one was really hungry, commenting that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Also, he worked some miraculous cures on the Sabbath. These actions are contrary to one of the "Ten Commandments," as some contemporary critics of his had noticed. Does God Revoke His Own Laws? -- Several people in the New Testament revoke Old Testament laws, which are described as having been presented to Moses by God himself. Paul revokes the laws requiring circumcision and forbidding the eating of pork and other "unclean" meats. Jesus Christ revoked several, notably the ones forbidding all work on the Sabbath, allowing divorce, seemingly glorifying self-castration, and (Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:19-20, Deuteronomy 19:21) prescribing "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and the like in certain cases. About the latter, he teaches (Matthew 5:38-44, Luke 6:27-30) that one should love one's enemies, turn the other cheek, etc. This is despite his claim (Matthew 5:17-18) that all of the Old Testament Law still stands. He claimed that it could all be summarized in the familiar Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31) "Do for others (just) what you would want them to do for you" [a modern-English translation; the word in ()'s is found in Luke but not in Matthew]. However, there is much in the Old Testament Law that (1) does not follow from this principle, like the Sabbath and the dietary laws, and (2) contradicts this principle, like intolerance of other religions. Elsewhere in this document, you will find many examples of activities glorified in the Bible that are contrary to the Golden Rule, such as Jesus Christ cursing that unfortunate fig tree for not bearing fruit when he wanted to eat, just because it was out of season. If he was a fruit vendor and he did not have some fruit that a customer wanted, just because it was out of season, would that customer have the right to murder him? Insensitivity, intolerance, and persecution directed at other religions (this is something that the Bible bangers bitterly bewail when anything like it is directed at them, even though they all-too-often direct that at others) -- Worship of gods other than Yahweh is labeled "idolatry" -- the worship of statues (Exodus 20:4-5, 23:24,37-33, Leviticus 19:4, 26:1, Deuteronomy 4:15-19,25-28, 5:7-9, 27:15); these are described as "gods" of wood and stone, that can't see, hear, eat, or smell (Deuteronomy 4:28). This insult to the traditional religions of the neighbors of the Israelites, and of some of the Israelites themselves, is repeated many times in the Bible. These gods are often labeled "disgusting" or "abominations." (2 Kings 1:2-6) The god of the Ekronites is labeled Beelzebub -- "The Lord of the Flies". One must destroy altars and images of the gods of conquered peoples (Exodus 34:13, Deuteronomy 7:25-26). (Exodus 22:20) The death penalty is prescribed for worshipping other gods. (1 Kings 18:16-20) The prophet Elijah challenges 450 prophets of the god Baal to see who had the more powerful god. They sacrificed and they prayed, but only Elijah's sacrifice was consumed by fire. The onlookers seized the prophets of Baal, and Elijah killed them all. (2 Kings 18:25) King Jehu announces a festival in honor of Baal, his worshippers show up, but all get killed instead. (2 Kings 23:4-20) King Josiah orders the destruction of objects connected with other deities, like Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Milcom/Moloch, Asherah, and the Sun, Moon, and stars. He also kicks out the priests of these gods and their temple prostitutes. Magic, divination, and contacting the spirits of the dead are forbidden; there is a death penalty for that also (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 19:26,31, 20:6,27). (Acts 19:23-41) Paul provokes the worshippers of the Greek goddess Artemis at Ephesus (Roman name: Diana) by implying that their religion is false. Not surprisingly, (1 Corinthians 8) he shows contempt for other religions. Even "insiders" do not escape -- consider how Jesus Christ vilified those Scribes (Teachers of the Law) and Pharisees. (Matthew 23) He called them "hypocrites" and "blind guides" who "strain out a gnat while swallowing a camel" and "snakes and sons of snakes" who will not escape being sent to Hell. Animal sacrifice (mentioned because some present-day people snicker at it as "barbaric") -- The Book of Leviticus contains detailed directions for various animal sacrifices. When King Solomon dedicated the Temple, he ordered the sacrifice of (we are told) 22,000 cows and 120,000 sheep. When Noah made burnt offerings from the sacrifices he had made, God relished the smell. In all fairness, animal sacrifice in the Old Testament, like animal sacrifice among many ancient societies, was simply a ritual surrounding the slaughter of a meat animal. Part of it was to be shared with whatever gods were worshipped by the sacrificer; the gods always seemed happy with the parts that their worshippers did not like. Human sacrifice -- (Genesis 22) Abraham is willing to sacrifice his son Isaac to Yahweh, only to be told at the last minute that it was only a test. (Judges 11:39) Jephthah proposed to sacrifice whatever came out of his house when he returned if he won a battle, but was very disappointed to discover that it was his daughter (and not, for example a dog) that he had to sacrifice. In the letters of Paul, we learn that the execution of Jesus Christ was really a human sacrifice; one that will serve as substitute punishment of the sins of anyone who chooses to believe in him (you can be as wicked as you want, but as long as you believe in Jesus Christ...). Anthropomorphism (I include this because this generally gives the appearance of an impoverished imagination; the Bible bangers are quick to notice such things in religions other than theirs) -- the God of the Bible is persistently described in anthropomorphic terms; he (note the male pronoun) is described as having an abundance of human emotions and "hands" and "feet". (Isaiah 40:22) God is described as sitting on a throne above the sky, which he had stretched out like a tent over the Earth, which was evidently believed to be flat. In the first creation story (Genesis 1:26-27) God is described as creating the first people in his likeness (both sexes in the likeness of a (presumably) male being); the resemblance must go both ways. In the second creation story (Genesis 2), we learn that God "plants" a garden, that he forms the first man out of dirt and brings him to life by breathing on him, that he creates animals and plants in much the same fashion, and even that he puts the man to sleep and forms the first woman from a rib of his that he extracts. Continuing, we find (Genesis 3:8) that he had been "walking" in that garden in Eden, and (Genesis 3:21) that he made clothes from animal skins for that wayward primordial couple. In the flood story, we find that (Genesis 7:16) that he shuts the door of the Ark behind Noah and (Genesis 8:21) that he sniffs the sacrifices that Noah makes after the flood ends. The more sophisticated kind of theologians have maintained that anthropomorphisms are essentially a mental crutch for the purpose of picturing the otherwise difficult-to-picture, but there is no statement of that hypothesis anywhere in the Bible. Is God Really Omniscient? -- In Genesis 2, we learn that God has to fix his creation as he goes, as if he could not anticipate everything that was necessary. In Genesis 7, we learn that God was very unhappy about the way humanity had turned out -- he had never anticipated that people could be so wicked (though we are not given too many details on that). So God is not really omniscient after all -- he could not anticipate the consequences of some of his actions, at least according to the Bible. Gross-outs (I'm not sure where this should go, but in any case, I recommend reading only on an empty stomach) -- (Proverbs 26:11) "A fool doing some stupid thing a second time is like a dog going back to its own vomit". (Acts 1:18) Judas Iscariot tripped and fell; he burst open and his guts flowed out [in a rival version (Matthew 27:5), he hanged himself]. During a confrontation (Isaiah 36:12), an Assyrian official stated that the people of Jerusalem will end up having to "eat their own dung and drink their own piss". ********** Responses to Criticisms ********** Not surprisingly, I have received several types of criticism for the contents of my "Biblical Satanic Verses." One criticism was that they were "ineffective and grasping." This criticism was from someone who had not expected too much out of sacred books, having discovered that Mohammed's main "argument" for the truth of his beliefs, as stated in the Koran, was "Believe! ... Believe! ... Believe!" and that those who did not accept his beliefs were little different from farm animals. However, the indignant response that my Biblical Satanic Verses have provoked in certain circles indicates otherwise. I have been accused of being too literal-minded. But how does one tell what is literal and what is allegorical? Some things the Bible states are recognizably metaphorical, others are presented in a context where a literal meaning would usually appear, and till other things in it are more ambiguous. In practice, it always seems to turn out that something is "literal" if one likes it and "allegorical" if one does not. I have also been accused of quoting the Bible out of context. I agree that quoting out of context is a deplorable practice, and it is for that reason that I have been careful to notice context, and the results have not always been what those who make this complaint have wanted them to be. Exactly what these critics mean by the proper "context" is unclear; but I often get the impression of some sort of whitewash. This is a type of "context" that my work has been free from. As with literal vs. allegorical interpretation, the general rule seems to be that something one likes does not need a context (even it ends up being quoted out of context), while something that one does not like does need a context -- a whitewashing "context," of course. My criticisms have been labeled unoriginal. I do not see that as a fault of this work; I freely acknowledge having built on the work of others. I see myself as presenting this work in an accessible form, as well as adding criticism original with myself. However, it is a legitimate criticism of the Bible, since it is presented as an absolute truth that is not derived from any human source. I find it depressing that there are those who have been willing to defend the alleged genocide, the "Final Solution of the Canaanite Question", described in the early parts of the Bible, rather than to try to argue it away. The "justifications" given certainly do not justify killing the innocent people among the groups massacred. Consider that the Nazis had similar justifications for their genocidal activities -- that Jews were the enemies of civilization, that they were loan-sharking bankers, that lecherous Jewish boys liked to seduce virtuous Nordic girls, that they were responsible for the "stab in the back" that led to Germanys' defeat in the last big war, etc. etc. And the worst thing about this defense is that, while the Nazis tried to hide their genocidal activities and their apologists maintain that they never practiced genocide (seriously!), these people actually defend genocide. ********** Final Comments ********** And I'm sure that the Bible bangers would despise Jesus Christ if he appeared outside the Bible. For one thing, they would consider it self-evident truth that he was homosexual, meaning, of course, that he was not a "real man." [Sorry if I insult net.gay-people, but that is just a stereotype] And they would say that a lot of the Bible ought to be banned -- if they judged it by the same standards as they do everything else. Why would Jesus Christ not be a "real man"? He apparently never married, he did not seem too sexually interested in women, and he advocated turning the other cheek. And I think we are all familiar with the stereotype that if you are not a "real man", you are homosexual. I do not deny that it is possible to quarrel with many of these interpretations; and I would not wish to imply that much of what I point out is peculiar to the Bible. Sexism, slavery, rejection of democracy, etc. etc. etc. etc. are hardly confined to the Bible. And I would not want to suggest that this type of critique be confined to the Bible. Many other books viewed as sacred by various people can be analyzed in the same way; they too may well contain things that their worshippers would dislike. The Koran is one good example of such a book. Indeed, I think of myself as following in the tradition of two sacred-book critics from ancient Greece, Xenophanes and Plato. Here is what Xenophanes had had to say (I quote from Bertrand Russell's _A History of Western Philosophy_): Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are a shame and disgrace among mortals, stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another ... Mortals deem that gods are begotten as they are, and have clothes like theirs, and voice and form ... yes, and if oxen and horses and lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the forms of gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds .,. The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Note: Thrace is north-eastern Greece and in ancient times, "Ethiopia" meant sub-Saharan Africa. In his dialogue _The Republic_, Plato put forth his idea of the ideal society (actually, it is "Socrates" who does the talking, but I will not argue the question of how much of Plato's Socrates is really Socrates and how much is Plato putting words into Socrates's mouth). He went into detail about a number of social arrangements, many of which sound totalitarian, but the interesting feature here is his treatment of the works of Homer and Hesiod -- he advocated that they should be banned (something I don't agree with for "wicked" books). First off, these poets state that the gods can change shape, that they sometimes tell lies, that they sometimes hand out bad fates, and that they even fight each other; the people are to be taught that God is no such thing, that God is not the author of all things, but only of good things(!). Apparently, "God" is here all the gods collapsed into one. These poets describe rich feasts -- the people are not to hear of such things, because they are to avoid luxury. They mention the gods laughing -- everybody is supposed to be grave and serious. Ditto about the lusts of the gods -- the people should not be preoccupied with sex. They talk about heroes lamenting dead companions and about how the dead are miserable in Hades -- they are not to fear death and are not to think that they will be unhappy in the next world, so that they will be willing to fight bravely without fear of what might happen in the next world. Here are some good references on the history behind the Bible: Isaac Asimov: Asimov's Guide to the Bible Richard Elliott Friedman: Who Wrote the Bible? Randel Helms: Gospel Fictions Elaine Pagels: Adam, Eve, and the Serpent Much of this material is from the _The Born-Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible_, by Ruth Hurmence Green, which is available from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Write to this address: FFRF, Inc. PO Box 750 Madison, WI 53711 Although Ms. Green's book is a good source for some of the seamier contents of the Bible, she seemed to show a lack of awareness of much modern scholarship concerning its contents. She seemed unaware of the Documentary Hypothesis, which states that the first five books in the Bible were edited together from four separate sources; for example, she did not quite treat the two creation stories in Genesis as two separate entities, as they ought to be. But she was evidently aware of one previous collector of Biblical Satanic Verses -- that great revolutionary activist Thomas Paine. He had written a book, _The Age of Reason_, in which he expounded his views on the Bible, for example, that much of the first five books of it could not have been written by Moses, contrary to tradition. Not surprisingly, his critique of the Bible aroused the indignation of the clergy of his day. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ REFERENCES: Self-contradictions of the Bible. William Henry Burr ISBN 0-87975 416 -8 1. Burr, William Henry, 1819-1908. Self-contradictions of the Bible / William Henry Burr ; with an introduction by R. Joseph Hoffmann. [Buffalo, NY : Prometheus Books], c1987. Series title: Classics of Biblical criticism. UCB Moffitt BS533 .B798 1987 UCD Main Lib BS533 .B798 1987 3. Cooper, Robert, secularist. The "Holy Scriptures" analyzed, or, Extracts from the Bible : shewing its contradictions, absurdities and immoralities / by Robert Cooper. 2nd ed., to which is added, a vindication of the work. Manchester, [Greater Manchester] : J. Cooper, 1840. Series title: Goldsmiths'-Kress library of economic literature ; no. 31887. UCLA AGSMgmt H 31 G57 Microfilm 4. DeHaan, M. R. 508 answers to Bible questions : with answers to seeming Bible contradictions / M.R. DeHaan. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan, [1968?], c1952. UCSB Library BS538 .D43 1968 18. Thaddaeus, Joannes, fl. 1630. The reconciler of the Bible inlarged : wherein above three thousand seeming contradictions throughout the Old and New Testament are fully and plainly reconciled ... / by J.T. and T.M. .. London : Printed for Simon Miller ..., 1662. Series title: Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1052:9. UCSD Central MICRO F 524 Current Periodical Microform 19. Poole, Matthew, 1624-1679. Annotations upon the Holy Bible. Vol. II : wherein the sacred text is inserted, and various readings annex'd, together with the parallel scriptures : the more difficult terms in each verse are explained,... The third edition, with the addition of a new concordance and tables, by Mr. Sam. Clark; the whole corrected and amended by the said Mr. Sam. Clark and Mr. Edward Veale .. London : Printed for Thomas Parkhurst [and 6 others], MDCXCVI [1696]. Series title: Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1041:1. UCSD Central MICRO F 524 Current Periodical Microform "the x-rated bible" by ben edward akerley, published by american atheist press, austin texas, 1985. -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x Mark S. Nowak If my employer finds out what I'm x x Internet: markn@mot.com I'm doing, I'm a DEAD MAN!!! :-) x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: jwindley@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jay Windley) Subject: Biblical inerrancy re-examined Date: 17 Aug 91 20:47:48 GMT Organization: Kansas State University INTRODUCTION This is a response to James Meritt's lengthy posting in which he lists several dozen errors and/or contradictions in the Bible. Most of these examples are well thought out and offer a serious challenge to the idea of an inerrant Bible. However, a few demand closer scrutiny. It is these few that I wish to examine. Meritt ends the introduction to his posting by noting that such contradictions "are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise." Meritt intends to refute the position of biblical fundamentalists, but in doing so he supports the Bible as an authentic historical document. The Bible *is* a hodge-podge of documents. Given this, it has a remarkable degree of consistency. While Meritt successfully demonstrates that the Bible does not agree with itself perfectly, I hope to show that such inconsistency does not undermine its value to the extent that we should abandon it. Meritt also concludes that because the Bible has been "edited" over the centuries it should now be harmonious. This wrongly assumes that such "editing" was directed toward that end. Most editing was done to resolve differences *within* each book. Only comparatively recently have we made efforts to resolve differences *between* books. As stated above, these responses should not necessarily be read as refutations, but merely explanations of how these discrepancies may have arisen. I have grouped Meritt's points together by passage or subject to avoid redundancy in the responses. ONE WITH THE FATHER No biblical dilemma is a larger can of worms than this one. However, Meritt could have chosen better verses. The "one" in Jn. 10:30 appears in the Greek neuter, suggesting that the "one-ness" is not physical but figurative -- much the same way a driver becomes "one" with his car. The verse need not be interpreted to mean that Jesus and God are equal or identical, which would have required a masculine "one." IN THE BEGINNING... Meritt dwells at length on the conflict between the two accounts of the Creation presented in Genesis. Many of his "problems" simply evaporate when correctly rendered from the Hebrew. Hebrew is a minimal language, in which there can be much ambiguity. The Old Testament of the King James Version is not a good translation in many respects. For example: BEASTS OR MAN FIRST? Hebrew handles verb tenses much differently than English. Gen. 2:19 might just as easily be rendered: "And the God YHWH *had* formed out of the ground [all those animals] and He brought them to Adam..." Similarly, Meritt's ordering of the creationary tasks is based on KJV's simplistic verb tenses. The Hebrew phraseology of the Jahwist record is flexible enough to give equal validity to the NIV version, which renders both accounts in the same order. HAPPY GODS? Since the Jahwist Creation is not "out of order" in the Hebrew, Meritt's contention that a supposedly forgetful God has to "fix up" His creation is unfounded. Incidentally, the Hebrew 'elohim' is a majestic plural -- written as a plural, but functioning grammatically and semantically as a singular. WATER FOWL? The KJV Gen. 1:20-21 associates two clauses which should be separate. NIV renders it more accurately. CATTLE? Gen. 30:39 implies that goats gave birth to bovines. However, in the 17th century "cattle" referred to livestock of any species. The Hebrew is correct. The English is archaic, but also correct. NOAH'S MANIFEST The phrase "by sevens" in Gen. 7:2,3 can also be rendered "in seven pairs." What is important is that each pair consist of a male and female. v. 8 claims they entered the ark by pairs, but does not imply that only one pair of each animal boarded. SOLOMON'S GARAGE The KJV Old Testament derives from the Masoretic texts. Some LXX manuscripts of 1K 4:26 have "four" rather than "forty." New translations follow LXX. Whether this is a bona fide error depends on which English translation is to be considered "inerrant." The same is true of the years of famine given in 2Sam. 24:13, 1Chr. 21:11; and the age of Jehoiachin in 2K. 24:8, 2Chr. 36:9. We have a much greater understanding of Hebrew than the King James translators, and access to much more manuscripts than were available at that time. 'TIS FOLLY TO BE WISE? 'Chakamah,' the operative Hebrew word in Pr. 4:7 and Ecc. 1:18, has several connotations, among them "the ability to judge" and "shrewdness." Its meaning is sufficiently broad to cover both usages. 1Cor. 1:19 quotes Is. 29:14, which speaks of the corrupt leaders of Jerusalem. The connotation is "book learning," which can be both good and bad. GENEALOGY OF JESUS The Bible contains two apparently conflicting genealogies of Jesus showing that He descends from David. Royal families are more prone than usual to intermarriage, so it is not impossible for both records to be true, as Jewish genealogists have demonstrated. Matthew's record is the royal lineage -- the list of legal successors to the throne of David. Luke's account is Jesus' natural pedigree (cf. Lord A.C. Hervey, _On the Genealogies of Our Lord_, 1853). Some consider Luke's version to be Mary's lineage, which makes Jesus literally of the "fruit of [David's] loins" -- through His mother. BATS ARE NOT BIRDS This is true enough in our present zoological taxonomy. Yet the Law includes bats in the list of "birds" not to be eaten. Though our present system of classifying life is based on detailed scientific principles, it is rather arbitrary and often counterintuitive. We say bats are not birds simply because we have agreed upon a convention which makes this so. Early taxonomies were probably much less formal and based more on observation of behavior and appearance than on detailed anatomical paragons. A bat resembles a small bird, especially when flying, so the early Jews may have considered it as a bird for practical purposes. Now God didn't want Israel to eat these things, so rather than say "don't eat species of the order Chiroptera [modern taxonomy]," he said "eat birds, except for these things [which you consider "birds"]." MELTING SNAILS Meritt must not have spent much time around slugs as a child. They don't melt, but because they secrete a liquid to moisten their path they must not stray far from a water source lest they die of dehydration. The trail of drying slime behind a moving slug gives the appearance that it is melting. One would expect such poetic (if not strictly accurate) language in a book of poems. THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH There are two different problems here. The first is that Is. 40:22 describes God sitting on the "circle of the earth." The Hebrew word 'chug' also means "sphere" (cf. Job 22:14). The second problem is as easy to solve. Mt. 4:8 has Satan taking Jesus to a high mountain and showing him the world. Meritt complains that this is impossible, but I think he is making too literal an interpretation. Jesus most likely saw the kingdoms in a vision conjured up by Satan. So why the high mountain? Simply that most visions and visitations take place on high mountains. Satan took Jesus to the mountain not because it was high enough for him to see the whole world but because such was the customary location for visions. Indeed, one could argue that this is not an INconsistency, but a CONsistency! EAT MY DUST, SNAKE! God curses the serpent in Gen. 3:14. "Eating dust" sounds more like a symbol of degradation, not a prescription of diet. And it's a fair bet that snakes ingest more dust than, say, giraffes. HANG UP THE EARTH, PLEASE All the references come from Job, a work whose authenticity is questioned. We'll give the fundamentalists the benefit of the doubt and assume it's authentic. The Book of Job is poetic, and in the Hebrew tradition that means it relies heavily on imagery which shouldn't be taken literally. "Pillars of heaven" and "Laying the foundations of the earth" are typical Hebrew poeticisms. They don't imply that God poured concrete. Finally, if God "hung the earth on nothing" then it really isn't supported, is it? WHERE HAS ALL THE WATER GONE? Ecc. 1:7 is in harmony with my understanding of the hydrological cycle. The verse does not mention evaporation as the method by which water migrates from the sea to the headwaters, neither does it deny it. "Storehouses of rain" is strictly scientifically inaccurate and completely at home in the poetry of Job. MOSES Num. 12:3 describes Moses as humble. The phrase is parenthetical, implying that it was an observation of Moses overall disposition. Later we read that Moses was angry because his military leaders had disobeyed YHWH's instructions -- a singular incident. Since we are all multifaceted individuals with variations in our demeanor, it is a simplistic assertion to say that Moses was "out of character." Tradition holds that Moses authored the Pentateuch, which records his death in Deut. 34:5. Contrary to modern editorial practice, it was the duty of early Jewish scribes and copyists to add such events to the applicable record as they occurred, sometimes long after the record had been "completed." SERMON ON THE MOUNT OR ON THE PLAIN? Matthew records a sermon on a mountain given to "his disciples." Luke tells of a lecture given on a plain before a large crowd. Though the content of the two accounts is similar, there is no other reason to assume that the two refer to the same speech. Jesus could have merely delivered the same sermon to two different groups at two different places. He may have taught his disciples the lengthier version (Matthew) on the mountaintop and later given an abbreviated version (Luke) to the larger crowd on the plain below. SATAN OR THE LORD (2Sam. 24:1)? "In a parallel account, 1 Chr. 21:1 says that Satan incited David to take a census. Who was it -- Satan or the Lord? One explanation is that both are true. The Lord, as the ultimate power, allowed the census, and as is typical in the Old Testament, he gets full credit here. The Chronicles version is more concerned about being precise: since the census was clearly evil (David confessed it as a sin, verse 10), Satan was more directly responsible. As is so often true of evil, people (and Satan) meant it for evil, but God used it for his own purposes" (note by Philip Yancey and Tim Stafford, _The Student Bible_ [NIV], Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1986, p. 301). GOD TEMPT ABRAHAM? Ja. 1:13 affirms that God tempts no man to do evil. The KJV of Gen. 22:1 seems to contradict this, however the Hebrew word here translated as "tempted" ('nasah') does not mean to tempt toward evil, but merely "to put to the test." See Ex 16:4, Deu. 8:2, and Is. 7:12 for other occurrences of 'nasah.' HOW MANY TIMES DID THE ROOSTER CROW? All the Evangelists but Mark claim the rooster crowed once after Peter's denial. The earliest manuscripts of Mark (4th and 5th centuries) omit "the second time" and "twice" from this verse (14:72). (Aland, _Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine_, 26a ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984) JUDAS ISCARIOT How did he die, by hanging or disembowelment? Who bought and named the "field of blood?" The biblical record is a mess. Why? Who would have known what *really* happened? Judas probably did himself in privately, so the only witnesses would be whoever discovered the body, and they would have had to reconstruct the events from the physical evidence. Luke tells us that Judas "fell headlong [in the field] and burst asunder." There's something fishy here. People fall headlong in fields all the time without their bowels "gushing out." If he fell on something like a sword then we could believe it, but no weapon is mentioned. It would also be conceivable if Judas fell from some great height, but Aceldama is a field. There is more here than what Luke is telling us. Matthew informs us that Judas died by hanging. Such is probably the case. One interesting theory which has been proposed to reconcile these accounts takes advantage of the fact that Luke does not mention disembowelment as the specific cause of death. James Talmage suggests that after hanging himself Judas fell due to breakage of the tree branch or cord (_Jesus the Christ_, Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981, p. 650). Less easily reconciled is the issue of Aceldama's purchase. Either Judas purchased it, or the Sanhedrin did; both cannot be true. Here, too, the evangelists probably had no first-hand knowledge of the events and for obvious reasons were loath to clear it up with the Sanhedrin. WHO BEARS GUILT? This is a strange conclusion -- Meritt equates "burden" as used in Gal. 6:1-5 with guilt, presumably for sin. Although v. 1 counsels lenient behavior toward a sinner, the balance of this section appears to counsel the faithful to be good and kind to each other (even sinners) and help each other out. I see no reason to equate "burden" with the sinner's guilt. In v. 2 we are counseled to share each others' burdens. Here the Greek word connotes "something grievous to be borne." The appeal is to exercise Christian charity rather than Judaic harshness. V. 5 uses a different Greek word which connotes a charge or responsibility (it is used to describe the cargo of a ship, for example). Paul is reminding us that each several man is required to keep his own house in order. These are two separate admonitions using two separate forms of speech. They do not contradict, nor do they have much to do with what Meritt says they do. MARRIAGE At least two lines of reasoning apply to Paul's statements to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7). The most acceptable in light of the text is that Paul is expressing his own opinion, unsupported by revelation (cf. v. 25). While this does not resolve the problem, it shifts the responsibility for the error from God to Paul. Another idea involves the spirit with which all of Paul's letters must be read. The Pauline epistles were written to specific individuals or groups and usually addressed their specific questions or problems. Not every passage that Paul wrote can be unilaterally applied to every situation. It may be that Paul was addressing a problem particular to the Corinthians for which he gave special instructions that superseded the general law. ONE OF OUR APOSTLES IS MISSING Paul's usage in 1Cor. 15:5 suggests that "the Twelve" is a title for the group of Apostles, regardless of their number. This practice is consistent with modern usage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints (Mormon) whose governing bodies are referred to as the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorum of the Seventy, despite the fact that the Twelve occasionally has fewer members due to death and that the Seventy has never had seventy members. METHODS OF EXPLANATION Meritt identifies several rationales used by fundamentalists (and by more moderate Christians, I might add) to defend supposed conflicts in the Bible. METAPHOR. I agree that metaphor is too often given as an explanation for contradictory phrases or to extract some desired meaning from an otherwise innocent passage. However, the Hebrew literary tradition relies heavily upon symbolism and metaphor. The Bible reader should expect a large dose of this language. In addition, much of the Old Testament is poetry, which may intentionally play on words with the full knowledge and understanding of the contemporary reader. We today who are further removed from the poetic tradition may not understand the idiom and be tempted to take it all too literally. CONTEXT. Despite Meritt's argument, this is a common problem. For eighteen centuries we Christians have been ignoring the context of Is. 7:14. I've never heard John 3:16 used "out of context," but I've heard several versions of the "context" surrounding John 3:5. TYPOS. Meritt's point is extremely valid. We should learn to separate what happened from what is written, and realize that -- like it or not -- the Bible is both divinely inspiring and humanly flawed. CONCLUSION Logically, the Inerrantists will have a hard time. Just one inexplicable inconsistency is enough to disprove them, and Meritt has shown us several (i.e., those I have not addressed). It is sad that the prevailing notion seems to be that the Bible must be absolutely infallible or utterly worthless. Acknowledgement of the human factor in Bible history in no way eliminates the divine presence. We must learn to believe in the Bible because there is a God, not vice versa. -- Jay Windley, SpE NET: jay@phobos.cis.ksu.edu VOICE: (913) 539-1626 COMPLAINTS: /dev/null Hey, wanna buy an Equinox data switch real cheap? From news@ux3.cso.uiuc.edu Wed Apr 22 17:37:49 1992 Received: from ux1.cso.uiuc.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA17654; Wed, 22 Apr 92 17:37:49 EDT Received: from ux3.cso.uiuc.edu by ux1.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA01608 (5.65d/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 22 Apr 1992 16:37:32 -0500 Received: by ux3.cso.uiuc.edu id AA16773 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for soc-religion-christian@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu); Wed, 22 Apr 1992 21:38:04 GMT Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!tga20201 From: tga20201@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (The Traveller) Subject: Re: Does the Bible have any contradictions References: Message-Id: <1992Apr22.213759.16726@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: usenet@ux3.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 21:37:59 GMT Lines: 20 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu richard@metz.une.oz.au (Richard Mackerras,Lamble 140,73-3464,71-1133) writes: >From article , by aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu: >> Someone asked me if there are any contradictions in the Bible, and I >> could not answer. Can anyone point out some to me (if, in fact, they >> do exist)? I'm looking for two different types of contradictions, the >> first being far more important: > >> 1. A self-contradiction: some fact described in one ... Look at Daniel 1:1. It says that Nebuchadnezzer was king of Babylon when Jerusalem was seiged. Now look at the end of the second book of Kings. Nebuchadnezzer was NOT king of Babylon when Jerusalem was laid seige. (Forgot who, and I don't have my Bible in front of me right now.) Its pretty trivial becuase Daniel was never intended to be a historical work, but an apopolyptic one. Now might be a good time to shed some light on the Daniel controversy brewing in some other articles, but I have to go eat. From nosun!hilbert!max@qiclab.scn.rain.com Thu Oct 1 08:28:17 1992 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA07194; Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:28:17 EDT Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA13590; Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:28:14 -0400 Received: from qiclab.scn.rain.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA06920; Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:28:08 -0400 Received: by qiclab.scn.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.24.1 #24.5) id ; Thu, 1 Oct 92 05:27 PDT Received: from hilbert.UUCP by nosun.West.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1-900117) id AA11479; Thu, 1 Oct 92 05:22:23 PDT Received: by hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.22.1 #22.5) id ; Wed, 30 Sep 92 14:36 PDT To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: max From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) Subject: Re: Question for fundamentalists Message-Id: <1992Sep30.213643.1273@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon References: Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:36:43 GMT In article rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes: >This is my submission that I mentioned would follow - it gives >a summary of three chapters of Dr. D. James Kennedy's book >_Why I Believe_. >... >Summary of Dr. D. James Kennedy's book "Why I Believe" > >[1]Why I Believe the Bible: >The Bible gives many predictive prophecies. It tells us of >a coming Prophet into whom's mouth God will put his words. >It tells not to fear anyone who gives a prophesy that is >false... Keep that in mind... >Examples: The cities of Tyre and Sidon, two great cities on >the Mediterranean Sea. Exekiel prophesied that Tyre would >be destroyed and never be rebuilt nor inhabited. Sidon was >to be brought down, but continue to be inhabited. Sidon was >attacked and many killed, but still exists to this day. > >Tyre on the other hand was at its height at the time of the >prophecy. It was to be destroyed, made like a rock, have >its building stones thrown into the sea, and be built no >more. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon fought against the city for >thirteen years and took it. Many former inhabitants fled >for an island and made a new city of Tyre. Two hundred and >fifty years later the city walls still stood, but Alexander >the Great came and took the old buildings and dumped them >into the sea to build a bridge to the new Tyre, in order to >take it. He did - the old city was stripped. Today the old >Tyre is like a rock and a place to spread fishing nets to >dry. >-- >rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu >Atlanta, GA *sigh*. D. Kennedy is the guy that denied ever having believed in the Paluxy man-tracks (that supposedly coexist with dinosaur tracks) until confronted with video tape. He is no more honest here; this claim was trashed when it was quoted from McDowell. Dave Butler writes: " Tyre is now Sur, a coastal Lebanese city of about 10,000 to 15,000 people. Comment: Josh is blatantly wrong, and it only took a couple minutes to verify. His scholarship is not merely shoddy, but non-existent." Robert Low writes: "On the fulfillment of OT prophecy, specifically the fall of Tyre: (Ezekiel 26ff) the description given of the fullfilment of this prophecy could only be held to by somebody who already was committed to believing that. The prophecy clearly implies that Tyre would fall to the forces of Nebuchadrezzar, and that Tyre would be completely destroyed, never again to be inhabited. Of course, Tyre survived the siege and was not taken until Alexander built a mole out to the island. It is hard to justify this as a fullfilment of the prophecy, since the King of Tyre is being told that he will die in the sacking of Tyre, and he didn't live that long. However, even granting this, Tyre is still inhabited to this day: McDowell attempts to extract himself from this by maintaining that what is "really meant" is that Tyre will never again be prosperous. Unfortunately for him, Tyre currently has a thriving tourist industry, and a fishing industry." James J. Lippard writes: "According to Ezekiel 26:3-14, 26:21, and 27:36, Nebuchadnezzar would capture Tyre and destroy it forever, never even to be found again. Ezekiel 26:12 predicted that he would seize its riches. In fact, Nebuchadnezzar's siege lasted 13 years, but he never captured the city, only its outworks on the mainland. Ezekiel 29:18 admits that he never captured its riches. Tyre was destroyed 240 years later by Alexander the Great, and it was subsequently rebuilt (and referenced in the New Testament in Matthew 11:21-22, Mark 3:8, Luke 10:13-14, Acts 12:20 and 21:3,7). It was destroyed again in 1291 C.E., again rebuilt, and continues to exist today. Josh McDowell, amazingly enough, cites this as a prime example of a prophecy that has been fulfilled [McDowell 72, pp. 285-291]. He rationalizes away the rebuilding of Tyre by making a distinction between "Old Tyre" and "Tyre", an arbitrary distinction made only by Christian apologists. He removes the problem of the prediction that Tyre would "never be found again" by claiming that Ezekiel 26:21 really means only that Tyre would never regain its former power." For lack of time, I will not address the other supposed prophecies. If you have a favorite, point it out, and I will address it. Regards, Max G. Webb Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: Thebes (was: I'm God.) Message-ID: <13674@pogo.wv.tek.com> Date: 2 Oct 92 23:55:03 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 29 Jim Merritt quotes my response to a Josh Mcdowell claim, that Thebes was be destroyed and never again had native rulers: >> 7. Thebes-Memphis >> destroyed, no more native rulers > > Memphis is the old Egyptian capital city near Cairo. It is where the > pyramids and Sphinx are located. While I would not call it in any way > a thriving city, it is definitely ruled by Egyptians. > ... > Thebes is now a prosperous Greek city called Thivia, located northwest of > Athens. The greeks do now rule the city. For the sake of completeness on my part, I wish to point out that I now know that there were two Thebes; one in Greece, and one in Egypt. This though does not in any way help the Josh Mcdowell claim that Thebes would be destroyed and have no native rulers, as the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes is now the modern city of Luxor, and is ruled by the native Egyptians. I apologise for not being more complete last time. Later, Dave Butler Knowledge consists in understanding the evidence that establishes fact, not in the belief that it is a fact. Charles T. Sprading American Writer Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!mmm.serc.3m.com!pwcs!medtron!ds0007 From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Biblical Errors Message-ID: <1992Oct30.023200.23807@medtron.medtronic.com> Date: 30 Oct 92 02:32:00 GMT References: <29781@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> Sender: news@medtron.medtronic.com (USENET News Administration) Organization: Medtronic, Inc. Lines: 71 Nntp-Posting-Host: buhao.pace.medtronic.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6] Peter White (pwhite@ems.cdc.com) wrote: : In article <1992Oct22.210640.22295@brtph560.bnr.ca>, ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes: [ weak Biblical contradictions deleted ] : |> I've got a few hundred more if you're really interested : I'm interested, if you have something better than the above, but if : they were at the top of your list, I'd rather talk about something else. : : I am not meaning to flame you either. I would be very happy to go : through each of the few hundred, even if they are all of an equal : nature. There are probably hundreds of "Biblical contradictions" out there. Probaby 95 percent of them can be discounted fairly easily, much in the manner that you did above. However, the 5 percent that remain are not so easy. Below are a couple examples of the nasty ones. I don't think that you can resolve these nasty ones without acknowledging that there is some kind of mistake. Just one error shoots down the idea that the Bible contains total, complete, absolute, inerrant truth. ======================================================================= I Kings 16:6,8 Baasha, King of Israel. died in the 26th year of Asa's reign over Judah. II Chronicles 16:1 In the 36th year of Asa's reign, Baasha built a city. ======================================================================= And how does the Bible answer simple questions on the death of Judas? What did he do with the 30 silver pieces? Who bought the field? How did he die? Where did he die? Why is it named the field of blood? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acts 1:18-19: With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open, and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew 27:3-8 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What's that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money in the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, 'It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.' So they decided to use the money to buy a potter's field for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Dale Skiba Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!princeton!udel!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: New Biblical Contradictions (The Death of Judas) Message-ID: <14430@pogo.wv.tek.com> Date: 19 Feb 93 00:31:29 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 79 Mr Rose attempts to reconcile the death of Judas by saying that Judas hung himself and then fell and broke on the ground: > A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself > on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the > valley of Hinnom. After he hung there for some time, the limb > of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas fell down > the ledge, mangling his body in the process. > ... > There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement > at the bottom. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas > struck one of the jagged rocks on this way down, tearing his > body open. It is important to remember that we are not told > how long Judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced > was the decomposition of his body before his fall. The problem though is that the stories of Judas' death are much more out of sync than Mr Rose portrays them: [Matthew 27:3-8] When Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, he repented himself and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. Saying, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See thou to that." And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests, took the silver pieces, said, "It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood." And they took council, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore the field was called the field of blood, unto this day. [Acts 1:18-19] Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he was burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem, insomuch as the field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, "The Field of Blood." Four questions come immediately to mind: Question: What did Judas do with the money? Answer 1: Judas flung the money at the Priests. Answer 2: Judas bought a field with the money. Question: How did Judas die? Answer 1: Judas hanged himself. Answer 2: Judas fell and burst open. Question: Who bought the field? Answer 1: The Priests. Answer 2: Judas. Question: Why is it called Field of Blood? Answer 1: It was bought with blood money. Answer 2: Judas spilt his blood on it. It even gets a little more complicated than that in the chronology is way out of sync. In Matthew, Judas throws the silver in the face of the Sanhedrin the morning after the Last Supper, goes out and directly commits suicide (ie: he does not outlive Jesus). The Sanhedrin then goes out buys some land, but they cannot buy it the same day as it is a high holy day (remember that the last supper was a Passover feast). So the land is bought after the suicide. In Acts though, Judas himself buys the land after the ascension and before he himself dies. Thus the land is bought before his death, and he outlives Jesus. Actually in relooking at the situation, the stories look nothing at all alike, and in my opinion they are nothing at all alike. Further, all the rationale I've seen to reconcile the stories, seem extremely contrived and forced. Later, Dave Butler Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, that we readily believe. Demosthenes, Athenian Orator Third Olynthiac, 348 BC Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!princeton!udel!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: New Biblical Contradictions (Inscriptions and last words) Message-ID: <14431@pogo.wv.tek.com> Date: 19 Feb 93 00:32:59 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 73 Another contradiction is the inscription on the cross: MATT 17:37 This is Jesus, the King of the Jews MARK 15:26 The King of the Jews LUKE 23:38 This is the King of the Jews JOHN 19:19 Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews Now this is not a problem, unless you believe that the Bible is divinely inerrant, and thus every word is true. And among others here, Mr Rose will have a hard time convincing me that there were 4 inscriptions on the cross. On the other hand, one would expect the last words of Jesus to to be better recorded, and yet, only two gospels agree as to his last words: MATT 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, Lama sabach-thani?" that is, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "This man is calling for Elijah." And one of them at once took a sponge filled with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. But the others said "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him. And Jesus cried out in a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. MARK 15:34 And in the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice "Eloi, Eloi, lama Sabathani?" which means "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold he is calling Elijah," And one of them ran and filling a sponge with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink saying, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down. And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. LUKE 23:46 Then Jesus crying with a loud voice, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit." And having said this he breathed his last. JOHN 19:28 After Jesus, knowing full well it was finished, said (to fulfilled scripture), said "I thirst." A bowl of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus received the vinegar, he said "It is finished"; and he bowed down his head and gave up his spirit. Now both Matthew and Mark recorded the same basic words, and then have Jesus simply shouting and dying, so I would not find it credible for someone to claim that those gospels just didn't record Jesus' very final words and in an attempt to, in some small way, reconcile those to gospels with the others. This is especially true, as there are so many other explicit contradictions. First, Luke explicitly contradicts John. Further, note what John claimed Jesus said just before getting the vinegar: "I thirst." And John claimed that this was necessary to fulfill scripture, but both Matthew and Mark claim that Jesus called "Eli, Eli, Lama sabach-thani?" just before receiving the vinegar. That doesn't jive. Nor does John record Jesus as shouting his last words, as do the others, but rather, simply has Jesus saying the words. And for that matter, Matthew and Mark can't even agree which bystander said "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." Mark has to the man giving the vinegar to Jesus saying it, and Matthew has the other people telling that to the man giving the vinegar. Now those defending inerrancy might possibly convince me that this could be the situation as remembered by several normal men, but as there are explicit contradictions they will not be able to convince me that these is the inerrant and absolutely accurate recordings dictated by the Holy Spirit. Now I really don't expect this to have any affect though on those who claim inerrancy, except perhaps for them to realize why I do not take their claims seriously. Later, Dave Butler Men willingly believe what they wish. Julius Caesar De Bello Gallico Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!princeton!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!news.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: New Biblical Contradictions (Three denials of Peter) Message-ID: <14432@pogo.wv.tek.com> Date: 19 Feb 93 00:35:42 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 105 Mr Rose made a brief attempt to reconcile the 3 denials of Peter. Unfortunately for his attempt, the contradictory narrations go well past the one instance he mentioned: MATT 26:69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard [ie: Jesus was inside the house away from Peter]. And a maid cam up to him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." But he denied it before them all saying, "I do not know what you mean." and when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth." And again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man." After a little while the bystander said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them, for your accent betrays you." Then he began to invoke a curse on himself, and to swear, "I do not know the man." And immediately the cock crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." And he went outside and wept. MARK 14:66 And as Peter was below in the courtyard [ie: Jesus was inside the house away from Peter], one of the maids of the high priest came; and seeing Peter warming himself she looked at him and said "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus." But he denied it, saying "I neither know or understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway. And the maid saw him, and began again to say again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them." But again he denied it. And after a while one of the bystanders said to Peter, Certainly you are on of them for you are Galilean." But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak." And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept. LUKE 22:54 Then they seized him [Jesus] bringing him into the high priest house. Peter followed at a distance and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them [ie: Peter sat with Jesus and the people who arrested him]. Then a maid seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said "This man was also with him." But he denied it saying, "I do not know him." And a little while latter some one else saw him and said, "You are also one of them." But Peter said "Man, I am not." And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, "Certainly this man was also with him; for he is Galilean." But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what your are saying." And immediately, while he was speaking, the cock crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, "Before the cock crows today, you will deny me thrice." And Peter went out and wept. And the men that held Jesus mocked him and smote him. JOHN 18:12 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went outside and brought Peter in. The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this mans disciples?" He said "I am not." Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire because it was cold and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself. [18:19-24 relates how the high priest questions Jesus in Peters presence in the courtyard and is thus skipped] Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are you not one of his disciples?" He denied it and said "I am not." One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" Peter again denied it, and at once the cock crowed. On observation one sees that these renditions are rife with contradictions. Both Mathew and Mark insist that Jesus was questioned away from the courtyard, while Peter was in the courtyard. Luke as Jesus questioned after Peter left. John has Jesus question while Peter watches in the courtyard. Jesus was present for the three denials in both Luke and John, but not in Matthew and Mark. Mark is the only gospel to mention anything about crowing twice; all others disagree. Further, no two explicitly recorded accusations or denials are the same. For example: First accusation: Matt: "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." Mark: "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus." Luke: "This man was also with him." [Not even directed at Peter] John: "Are not you also one of this mans disciples?" First denial: Matt: "I do not know what you mean." Mark: "I neither know or understand what you mean." Luke: "I do not know him." John: "I am not." Then there is the problem that the Gospels cannot even agree who asked the same question. In Matthew, a maid, different from the first, makes the second accusation. In Mark, the same maid who made the first accusation, also made the second accusation. In Luke, the second accusation was made by a man. John just doesn't specify. Now one might try to say that Peter made all these denials, but then we would have Peter making many more than 3 denials, and that would make no sense as he is recorded as leaving after 3 denials. All in all, I would have to say that I do not see that these 4 stories are in any detailed accord, and thus I see these passages as refuting inerrancy. Later, Dave Butler Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, that we readily believe. Demosthenes, Athenian Orator Third Olynthiac, 348 BC Path: igor.rutgers.edu!rutgers!princeton!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.tek.com!shaman!pogo!daveb From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: New Biblical Contradictions (Time of Crucifixion and Resurrection) Message-ID: <14433@pogo.wv.tek.com> Date: 19 Feb 93 00:39:02 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 54 Another problem I see with inerrancy is the disagreement as to when Jesus was crucified. Matthew and Mark says on the Sabbath, and John says just before. Remember that Matthew and Mark say that the Last Supper was a Passover seder, but John says that Jesus died just before the seder, at the exact time a Passover lamb is slaughtered. To further back up my point, I will quote from a Christian apologist (quoted from an article written a while ago by Michael Siemon). The quote is from Eduard Schweizer (New Testament Professor in the University of Zurich) and the book is _Jesus_, translated from the German _Jesus Christus_ [1968] by David E. Green and published by the John Knox Press [1976]. The following is from page 9 [... denotes minor deletion to keep this short]: According to Mark 15.25, 33-34, Jesus is crucified at the third hour, i.e., about nine o'clock. The darkness over the cross of Jesus begins at the sixth hour ... Jesus dies at the ninth hour ... According to John 19.14, however, Pilate does not condemn Jesus until the sixth hour ... Historically speaking, at least one of these chronologies must be incorrect. The question is whether both Mark and John are not trying to make the same true point, and whether this truth is not all that matters. What it boils down to is this: according to John, Jesus dies on the eve of Passover; according to the Synoptics, he dies on the day of Passover itself. ... According to John 19.14, Jesus dies late in the afternoon preceding the Passover meal, which took place after sundown; he dies, therefore, at the very hour when the Passover lamb is being slaughtered. John 1.29,30 and especially 19.36 make it quite clear that this association is intentional* [* Psalm 34.21 may be the original source of this view ... John himself, however, surely is thinking of the instructions for preparing the Passover lamb found in Exodus 12.10 (LXX), 46 and Numbers 9.12. According to Mark, however, Jesus' last supper with his disciples was the Passover meal. Mark is thinking of another Old Testament passage, Amos 8.9, according to which the sun will set at noon and darkness will cover the earth at midday on the Day of Judgment. According to Mark's chronology, the sun sets precisely at noon on the day of Jesus' crucifixion, and darkness lasts from noon until three p.m. This precise hourly chronology of events, elsewhere unparalleled in Mark, also emphasizes the fact that on this day everything takes place, hour by hour, according to God's will. ... John and Mark are therefore using two different modes of presentation, which cannot be reconciled historically, to say the same thing: in the death of Jesus the expectations of the Old Testament finally reached their goal. So the question arises as to when Jesus was crucified. Also remember that Matthew has the resurrection happening on Sunday [Matt 28:1], and thus Jesus was only in the crypt for two days. Later, Dave Butler Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, that we readily believe. Demosthenes, Athenian Orator Third Olynthiac, 348 BC From clyons@hibbs.vcu.edu Wed Dec 15 14:33:57 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA03143; Wed, 15 Dec 93 14:33:57 EST Received: from relay2.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA11754; Wed, 15 Dec 93 14:33:39 -0500 Received: from hibbs.vcu.edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA14252; Wed, 15 Dec 93 14:33:31 -0500 Received: by hibbs.vcu.edu (5.57/OSx-4.1-hm) id AA07845; Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:51:04 -0500 Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: clyons From: clyons@hibbs.vcu.edu (Christopher D. Lyons) Subject: Condradictions in Bible (?) Message-Id: <1993Dec15.185059.7781@hibbs.vcu.edu> Organization: Virginia Commonwealth University Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 18:50:59 GMT Lines: 635 Apparently-To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net I am beginning my own research on the following, I thought that others might find this list a good crib sheet with which to prepare for arguments: `Oh yeah... xxx3:2 says "Z" and yyy2:3 says "anti-Z", how do you explain that?' I have a feeling its all involved with context, and will let you know what I find out. Without further adieu: (BTW: I got this list from an atheist) ============================================================================== Biblical Contaradictions Theological doctrines 1. God is satisfied with his works God is dissatisfied with his works. 2. God dwells in chosen temples <2 Chron 7:12,16> God dwells not in temples 3. God dwells in light God dwells in darkness <1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2> 4. God is seen and heard God is invisible and cannot be heard 5. God is tired and rests God is never tired and never rests 6. God is everywhere presesnt, sees and knows all things God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things 7. God knows the hearts of men God tries men to find out what is in their heart 8. God is all powerful God is not all powerful 9. God is unchangable God is changable 10. God is just and impartial God is unjust and partial 11. God is the author of evil God is not the author of evil <1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13> 12. God gives freely to those who ask God witholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them 13. God is to be found by those who seek him God is not to be found by those who seek him 14. God is warlike God is peaceful 15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocius God is kind, merciful, and good 16. God's anger is fierce and endures long God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute 17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices ,and holy days God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days. 18. God accepts human sacrifices <2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39> God fobids human sacrifice 19. God temps men God temps no man 20. God cannot lie God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits t decieve <2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9> 21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him 22. God's attributes are revealed in his works. God's attributes cannot be discovered 23. There is but one God There is a plurality of gods Moral Precepts 24. Robery commanded Robbery fobidden 25. Lying approved and sanctioned Lying forbidden 26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned <2 Kings 14:7,3> Hatred to the Edomite forbidden 27. Killing commanded Killing forbidden 28. The blood-shedder must die The blood-shedder must not die 29. The making of images forbidden The making of images commanded 30. Slavery and opression ordained Slavery and opression forbidden 31. Improvidence enjoyed Improvidence condemned <1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22> 32. Anger approved Anger disapproved 33. Good works to be seen of men Good works not to be seen of men 34. Judging of others forbidden Judging of others approved <1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12> 35. Christ taught nonresistance Christ taught and practiced physical resistance 36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed Christ himself avioded the Jews for fear of being killed 37. Public prayer sanctioned <1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3> Public prayer disapproved 38. Importunity in prayer commended Importunity in prayer condemned 39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned The wearing of long hair by men condemmed <1 Cor 11:14> 40. Circumcision instituted Circumcision condemned 41. The Sabbath instituted The Sabbath repudiated 42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites out of Egypt 43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his deciples in the same 44. Baptism commanded Baptism not commanded <1 Cor 1:17,14> 45. Every kind of animal allowed for food. Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food. 46. Taking of oaths sanctioned Taking of oaths forbidden 47. Marriage approved Marriage disapproved <1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8> 48. Freedom of divorce permitted Divorce restricted 49. Adultery forbidden Adultery allowed 50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union 51. A man may marry his brother's widow A man may not marry his brother's widow 52. Hatred to kindred enjoined Hatred to kindred condemned 53. Intoxicating beverages recommended Intoxicating beverages discountenanced 54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers and punish evil doers only It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the good and recieve unto themselves damnation therefor 55. Women's rights denied Women's rights affirmed 56. Obedience to masters enjoined Obedience due to God only 57. There is an unpardonable sin There is not unpardonable sin Historical Facts 58. Man was created after the other animals Man was created before the other animals 59. Seed time and harvest were never to cease Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years 60. God hardened Pharaoh's heart Pharaoh hardened his own heart 61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died All the horses of Egypt did not die 62. Moses feared Pharaoh Moses did not fear Pharaoh 63. There died of the plague twenty-four thousand There died of the plague but twenty-three thousand <1 Cor 10:8> 64. John the Baptist was Elias John the Baptist was not Elias 65. The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob The father of Mary's husband was Heli 66. The father of Salah was Arphaxad The father of Salah was Cainan 67. There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David There were but thirteen generations from Abraham to David 68. There were fourteen generations from the Babalonish captivity to Christ. There were but thirteen generations from the Babalonish captivity to Christ 69. The infant Christ was taken into Egypt The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt 70. Christ was tempted in the wilderness Christ was not tempted in the wilderness 71. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount Christ preached his first sermon on the plain 72. John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee 73. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff and sandals Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with neither staves not sandals 74. A woman of Canaan besought Jesus It was a Greek woman who besought Him 75. Two blind men besought Jesus Only one blind man besought Him 76. Christ was crucified at the third hour Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour 77. The two thieves reviled Christ. Only one of the thieves reviled Christ 78. Satan entered into Judas while at supper Satan entered into him before the supper 79. Judas committed suicide by hanging Judas did not hang himself, but died another way 80. The potter's field was purchased by Judas The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests 81. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre There were two women who came to the sepulchre 82. There were three women who came to the sepulchre There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre 83. It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre It was some time before sunrise when they came. 84. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and they were standing up. There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down. 85. There were two angels seen within the sepulchre. There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre 86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave 87. Holy ghost bestowed at pentecost Holy ghost bestowed before pentecost 88. The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go into Galilee The disciples were commanded immediately after the resurrection to go tarry at Jerusalem 89. Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at Jerusalem Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee 90. Christ ascended from Mount Olivet Christ ascended from Bethany 91. Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood speechless Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate 92. Abraham departed to go into Canaan Abraham went not knowing where 93. Abraham had two sons Abraham had but one son 94. Keturah was Abraham's wife Keturah was Abraham's concubine <1 Chron 1:32> 95. Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the interposition of Providence Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years old without any interposition of providence 96. Jacob bought a sepulchre from Hamor Abraham bought it of Hamor 97. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed forever Abraham and his seed never recieved the promised land 98. Goliath was slain by Elhanan <2 Sam 21:19 *note, was changed in translation to be correct. Orignal manuscript was incorrect> The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan <1 Chron 20:5> 99. Ahaziah began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram <2 Kings 8:25> Ahaziah began to reign in the eleventh year of Joram <2 Kings 9:29> 100. Michal had no child <2 Sam 6:23> Michal had five children <2 Sam 21:8> 101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Isreal <2 Sam 24:1> David was tempted by Satan to number the people <1 Chron 21:1> 102. The number of fighting men of Isreal was 800,000; and of Judah 500,000 <2 Sam 24:9> The number of fighting men of Isreal was 1,100,000; and of Judah 470,000 <1 Chron 21:5> 103. David sinned in numbering the people <2 Sam 24:10> David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah 1 Kings 15:5> 104. One of the penalties of David's sin was seven years of famine. <2 Sam 24:13> It was not seven years, but three years of famine <1 Chron 21:11,12> 105. David took seven hundred horsemen <2 Sam 8:4> David took seven thousand horsemen <1 Chron 18:4> 106. David bought a threshing floor for fifty sheckels of silver <2 Sam 24:24> David bought the threshing floor for six hundred shekels of gold <1 Chron 21:25> 107. David's throne was to endure forever. David's throne was cast down Speculative Doctrines 108. Christ is equal with God Christ is not equal with God 109. Jesus was all-powerful Jesus was not all-powerful 110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation 111. Christ's mission was peace Christ's mission was not peace 112. Christ received not testimony from man Christ did recieve testimony from man 113. Christ's witness of himself is true. Christ's winess of himself is not true. 114. Christ laid down his life for his friends Christ laid down his life for his enemies 115. It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death 116. Children are punished for the sins of the parents Children are not punished for the sins of the parents 117. Man is justified by faith alone Man is not justified by faith alone 118. It is impossible to fall from grace It is possible to fall from grace 119. No man is without sin <1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10> Christians are sinless <1 John 3: 9,6,8> 120. There is to be a resurrection of the dead <1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16> There is to be no resurrection of the dead 121. Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world 122. Annihilation the portion of all mankind Endless misery the portion of all mankind 123. The Earth is to be destroyed <2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11> The Earth is never to be destroyed 124. No evil shall happen to the godly Evil does happen to the godly 125. Worldly good and prosperity are the lot of the godly Worldly misery and destitution the lot of the godly 126. Worldly prosperity a reward of righteousness and a blessing Worldly prosperity a curse and a bar to future reward 127. The Christian yoke is easy The Christian yoke is not easy 128. The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness The fruit of God's spirit is vengance and fury 129. Longevity enjoyed by the wicked Longevity denied to the wicked 130. Poverty a blessing Riches a blessing Neither poverty nor riches a blessing 131. Wisdom a source of enjoyment Wisdom a source of vexation, grief and sorrow 132. A good name is a blessing A good name is a curse 133. Laughter commended Laughter condemned 134. The rod of correction a remedy for foolishness There is no remedy for foolishness 135. A fool should be answered according to his folly A fool should not be answered according to his folly 136. Temptation to be desired Temptation not to be desired 137. Prophecy is sure <2 Pet 1:19> Prophecy is not sure 138. Man's life was to be one hundred and twenty years Man's life is but seventy years 139. The fear of man was to be upon every beast The fear of man is not upon the lion 140. Miracles a proof of divine mission Miracles not a proof of divine mission 141. Moses was a very meek man Moses was a very cruel man 142. Elijah went up to heaven <2 Kings 2:11> None but Christ ever ascended into heaven 143. All scripture is inspired <2 Tim 3:16> Some scripture is not inspired <1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17> From news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Sat Dec 18 03:22:43 1993 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA02558; Sat, 18 Dec 93 03:22:43 EST Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA19336; Sat, 18 Dec 93 03:22:36 -0500 Received: from usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA02029; Sat, 18 Dec 93 02:58:43 -0500 Received: by usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (5.65b+ida+/CWRU-1.5.3-UUCPGW) id AA08032; Sat, 18 Dec 93 02:58:41 -0500 (from news for soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net) To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Path: po.CWRU.Edu!mjb10 From: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Condradictions in Bible (?) Date: 18 Dec 1993 07:58:40 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Lines: 216 Message-Id: <2eud7g$7qu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> References: Reply-To: mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) Nntp-Posting-Host: owl.ins.cwru.edu Whew! Over 100 purported Bible contradictions. I have seen lists such as this posted on various BBSs over the years, which leads me to tentatively make a proposal. I was wondering if you, and other Christians out there, would like like to work on a response through e-mail contacts? Once we finish (and it may take months) we could post it. I'm not that proficient with computers, and I really don't have the time to organize such a thing, but I'd be willing to try. Of course, is someone else would like to coordinate/organize this effort, I would gladly defer. :) It might be a good idea to get a group together (through an e-mail group) so that we can pool our resources and talents and come up with some form of response for each purported contradiction. Keep in mind that there is no rush. We could take as long as needed. If anyone is interested, contact me via e-mail. However, for now, let me try to "go it alone" and offer the following brief reponse. The first thing to consider is the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative? In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one provided to you. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (ie, one cannot prove that X [contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us