The Bible-- Full of Errors And Inconsistencies?

by Recovery 114 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Splash
    Splash

    New Chapter: Regarding mammoths freezing as they ate---huge fail. Research that. Research what they actually found---and you will also learn that the mammoth did not freeze to death, but fell into a sink hole and was covered with silt, and was preserved that way. Not through freezing. It had a broken leg. that case has been so misrepresented by bible believers, and so easy to call out, anyone should be ashamed to even use it.

    I really didn't know that! I consider myself to be quite well researched, so it looks like there's another topic for me!

    Splash

  • Leolaia
  • myelaine
    myelaine

    dear Terry...

    you said: "From that moment in history came a dynamic and dramatic TEST of the power of scripture."...

    there was no test...theologians took on the task of formulating doctrine from various scriptures. To bring certain scriptures together unifies a theme. this is where you say competeing doctrines...there aren't competing doctrines within the church so much as one denomination may put more emphasis on a certain doctrine above another.

    the church has to move with the times and we can see the evolution and changing of certain doctrines throughout the life of the church in order to "reach" the people of different eras...with the doctrine of atonement, for example, theologians formulated from scripture(for the times they were living in) the ransom theory(God needed to buy us back from satan), satisfaction theory(God's honor was at stake and Jesus satisfied God's honor on behalf of humans), the penal-substitution theory(human sin transgresses God's holy law, we are all guilty and Jesus, being perfect, was sent to pay the penalty for our sin) and the moral-influence theory(we are inclined to love God as we see the great love for mankind displayed in the cross of Jesus Christ)...none of these theories are wrong or competing. Neither are the various baptisim theories what have been put forward, the santification theories etc...they are all just creative ways of teaching people the truth of the gospel.

    theologians don't just use the bible as their source for interpretation either, they integrate the scriptures, previous docternal heritage and culture. speaking to the time they live by bringing what's happening in the world with what the church teaches and what scripture says together to produce an integrative motif. Speaking to the people of my "time" I'm all about the resurrection as my integrative motif

    love michelle

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Over lapping mythological story telling is bound to create errors. In that sense shouldn't these stories be subjectively evaluated

    in similar approach as understanding pictographs put on temples or tablets, irregardless of the message being inscribed into words ?

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    What if the bible were filled with thousands of contradictions and errors? Would you still think it was the "inspired word of God?" What if it had only one truly irreconcilable contradiction? One absolute error that could not be fixed? Could it have come from the Mind of God?

    I will supply only a few contradictions that are truly impossible to reconcile, then give links to pages that contain hundreds of contradictions and errors, if you wish to explore further. One of the main points I would like to make is that if the bible is the inspired word of God, not only should it have no errors or contradictions, it should not even give the appearance of having such problems. It should be a book that no human mind could produce. And if God has given the bible to us through authors He has "inspired", should he not "inspire" the translators as well? Why would He allow His Word to be corrupted by incompetent men?

    Contradiction Number One:

    In Matthew 27:5, Judas threw down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed and he went and hanged himself.

    But in the Acts of the Apostles 1:18, Judas kept the silver and purchased a field with it; he went into it and falling headlong, he burst open and all his bowels gushed out.

    That is a contradiction. Did Judas throw down the money in the temple, or did he purchase a field with it? He cannot have done both. He cannot have both hanged himself and threw himself face down into a field and exploded. One account MUST be false (or both are). Which one should you believe? Why should you be placed in this position of having to choose between scriptures as to which one is true and which one is false? Who purchased the field? Judas or the priests? Both of these stories cannot be true at the same time. This one example leads to the honest and inescapable conclusion that the bible is not wholly true and consistent-- that it is flawed.

    Contradiction Number Two:

    Does God change his mind?

    • Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
    • Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
    • Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
    • James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

    VS.

    • Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
    • Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
    • Jeremiah 15:6 "Thou hast forsaken me, saith the Lord, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary of repenting."

    Of course, the most spectacular instance of God flip-flopping on an issue is when He changed His mind about creation, and killed every man, woman, child and animal on the planet with a Great Flood (with the exception of Noah and his family, of course). If He was all powerful, why didn't He just make the wicked people vanish off the face of the earth, clean and simple? Wasn't He powerful enough to do that? That would have been muchmore impressive than rain.

    Genesis 6:6,7-- "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."

    Didn't He know 'the beginning from the end', as we are led to believe? Did He forget that Humanity would become so utterly evil that all men, women and children, millions of them, needed to be drowned? That's not something you would think He'd miss. But apparently He did. But someone who knows the future CANNOT regret something he did. To regret something is to wish you had not done it. If he regrets something, that means he did not know the future in the first place.

    The purpose of the flood was to rid the world of wickedness. Was it successful? A nyway-- does God change his mind or not? If He does, why does the bible say He doesn't? If He doesn't, why does He admit that He does? You can't have it both ways and remain honest with yourself.

    Contradiction Number Three

    Has anyone seen God?

    • John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
    • Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."
    • I John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time."

    VS.

    • Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
    • Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
    • Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."
    • Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

    Has anyone seen Him and lived? Or not? It says both. Both statements can't be true.

    Contradiction Number Four (and five):

    Mark states that Jesus was crucified in the "third hour", (MK 15:25), while John states clearly that Jesus was crucified "about the sixth hour." How can he be crucified in the sixth hour if he had already been crucified three hours earlier? Also, Matthew, in 27:28, states that Jesus had a scarlet robe put on him (the Greek word for scarlet here is kokkinos), while John states, in 19:2-3 that the soldiers dressed him in a purple robe (the greek word for purple here is porphurous).

    If you think that these are just differences in opinion or perception, you might want to think again. You are then admitting that the "Word of God" is subject to interpretation.

    As Robert Green Ingersoll stated so well: "The question is, were the authors of these four gospels inspired?
    If they were inspired, then the four gospels must be true.
    If they are true, they must agree.
    The four gospels do not agree."
    (About the Holy Bible - 1894).

    Contradiction Number Six:

    Who was Moses' father-in-law?

    Exodus 3:1 Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses.

    VS.

    Numbers 10:29, Judges 4:11 (KJV) Hobab was the father-in-law of Moses.

    Contradiction Number Seven:

    Does God tempt people?

    • James 1:13 "Let no man say I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
    VS.
    • Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

    Contradiction Number Eight:

    Are we all sinners?

    • Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
    • Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."
    • Psalm 14:3 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one."

    VS.

    • Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright."
    • Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."
    • Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

    Contradiction Number Nine:

    "... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

    VS.

    "... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10

    Contradiction Number Ten:

    Jesus stated that he was the only person to ascend up into heaven, thereby denying all the other biblical ascentions.

    • "No man hath ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of Man." -- John 3:13

    VS.

    • 2 Kings 2:11 "And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli'jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
    • Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him."
    • 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise-- and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter."

      Error Number One:

      Leviticus 11:20-23 states that there are winged insects that go around on all fours. This is completely false. All insects have six legs.

      Error Number Two:

      Leviticus 11:6 states incorrectly that rabbits chew their cud. They do not-- this is wrong. Why didn't God know this? And why would the All Powerful Creator of the Universe really care whether or not people ate rabbits anyway?

      Error Number Three:

      In Exodus 17:14, God states quite clearly: "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." BUT, didn't God just permanently preserve a record of them in the bible? How could the memory of them be blotted out from under heaven?

      Error Number Four:

      Isaiah, in 30:26, thinks that someday "the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun". This was written in the days when people thought the moon gave off it's own light. It does not. There is no "light of the moon".

      Error Number Five:

      Matthew 4:8 states that there is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. There is no such thing. (Note: This implies a flat earth.)

  • myelaine
    myelaine

    dear Finkelstein...

    you said: "In that sense shouldn't these stories be subjectively evaluated"...

    they are...it is the opportunity of each member of the church to evaluate how these teachings "work" for them with the intent to maintain a thriving christian community and further the [hands and feet] work of Jesus Christ within the broader society in which they must move about as ambassadors. for instance, one of the dictates involved in the great commission (teach them to do ALL things I have commanded) is to minister to the physical needs of "the nations/society" and it has seen the building of hospitals...childrens sponsorship programs etc.

    love michelle

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    I am sure there is a quote from an old Watchtower that says something like "of course the Bible is full of mistakes". But I can't remember where I read it. Does anyone else remember it?

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Michelle, this isn't a topical thread on the validity of the Gospel of Jesus, its more of an open analytical look of the validity of (a)

    god having a working force in the hand of writing the written words of the Bible itself..

    One could actually start a thread examining the Gospel of the NT alone.

  • Etude
    Etude

    Whoa, that's a lot of stuff coming at me. It's all good. The reason I cited several texts and several translations (I didn't cite all that I found) is to suggest that when many different scholars translate a word as "circle", they're probably alluding to a common idea, perhaps more than a round area in the ocean or on the ground (since the horizon does not seem to curve down or up from any particular perspective). I shouldn't have said in post #201: " But you can't have a circle anywhere near a flat surface. " What I meant to say is that a circle should not be equated with a flat surface with corners (alluding to the "corners of the Earth" saying and assuming that by "Earth" we mean the ground and the oceans, lakes, rivers, etc).

    I assume (and not because of the Jeehoovees) that if a circle is mentioned, it would infer at least a round Earth because mention of "corners" in our discussion was being used by some here as an indication that they (the bible people) believed the Earth was flat (and probably square). I use "corners of the Earth" precisely for the reasons you mention, King Solomon. Did you miss that? And if I say: "My heart goes out to you" it is for the same reasons and not because I'm offering you a transplant or have another organ that is anything but figurative and metaphorical. I'm a monist and know that I "feel" with my brain chemistry.

    I don't whether or not the Bible is purposefully being metaphorical by using the terms "corners". That's why I said that if some believed the Earth was round, the people who wrote Genesis may not have believed the same. I'm simply suggesting that, along with other cultures, some may have believed or known the Earth was round (spherical). To say that such conclusion is invalid because it's fabricated to support an argument is no less valid that to suggest it is not a valid conclusion without producing specific contrary evidence. In this case, I do believe that the idea of "circle" in the Bible inferring a spherical Earth is at least open to interpretation.

  • Etude
    Etude

    And, mP, when you say: "You must understand that the translators have selected 'circle' so it would appear the Bible is accurate", you need to realize that many translations, almost as many who mention "circle" actually don't use the word "circle" in those texts. I don't know the exact reason but in some cases it is to be more generic or perhaps even poetic in the translation. Using your premise as a basis, I could argue that the translations that didn't use the word "circle" deliberately omitted it in order to conform to the common belief that Earth was flat and deny the reality that would have threatened their theology. After all, the Catholic church fought all efforts to suggest otherwise. Don't you think there would have been other religious contingencies that would have wanted the same?

    So, to sum it all up, I'm not arguing anything in regards to the "inspiration" and the veracity of the Bible. That's a big leap I think some of you have made regarding my declaration against the suggestion that the Bible doesn't mention that the Earth is round. And I'm not suggesting that because the Bible may agree with reality in one instance that it is not riddled with fallacies or that it arrived at that reality correctly.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit