The Bible-- Full of Errors And Inconsistencies?

by Recovery 114 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    I noticed in the "Magic" thread many former JW's no longer adhere to the Bible as the unerring and accurate word of God. If you feel this way, can you please list any specific reasons/arguments as to why not. This thread isn't for debating purposes, but simply for listing. Having a collection of expositions all together in one thread will be a lot less time consuming. Thanks in advance to all who will take time to participate.

    It is a "meta" belief about the Bible that it is unerring, but that's a belief that is demonstrably wrong.

    The prophet Ezekiel even admitted that his prophecies about Tyre were not fulfilled. He said that Nebuchadnezzar would not only conquer the city and enrich himself with its wealth, but that he would raze it and wipe the island clean by throwing its ruins into the sea. And not just that, Ezekiel said that Tyre would never be rebuilt. Well, that was the prediction he made while the war was going on. When the war ended, Ezekiel had to revise things and say, "Yes, yes, Nebuchadnezzar did not take wealth from Tyre, so he's going to attack Egypt instead and take the wealth from there". And so Ezekiel claimed that he would conquer Egypt and exile the population and raze the cities, such that the land would be empty for forty years. That also didn't happen. Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Egypt was a bust and the reign of Amasis was a very prosperous time for the Egypt. Many everyday documents and monuments prove that the prophesied forty-year desolation never happened. Life continued uninterrupted. And even if we want to claim that Ezekiel's predictions were later fulfilled by Alexander the Great (which is NOT what Ezekiel said), he was still wrong. Tyre was rebuilt many times and still exists today; the island city is today part of a peninsula and there is a thriving urban city exactly where the old island kingdom used to be.

  • Recovery
    Recovery

    Okay, Leolaia I have to disagree with you on some basic points. Ezekiel 26:3 says ", ‘Here I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up against you many nations, just as the sea brings up its waves." Verse 5 says "‘For I myself have spoken,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘and she must become an object of plunder for the nations."

  • Recovery
    Recovery

    When Ezekiel said she would never be rebuilt, he had to have something else in mind, since the scripture says 'many nations' will come up against her. Many nations goes far beyond Babylon and Greece. It also says fisherman will hang their fishnets there, which indicates that there would be some occupation and thus rebuilding. I think the context for the prophecies determined what Ezekiel meant when he said 'she will never be will rebuilt'. Most of the prophecies focus on the beauty and the riches and the prestige of the ancient city of Tyre. It is similar to Egypt. Ezekiel prophesied that it would become a lowly kingdom. Egypt at one time was the dominating world power, and even in Ezekiel's day was still considered relatively influential and important. But look at Egypt today. Has it not become a mere shadow of what it used to be?

    From the very first time Ezekiel prophesies about Tyre he mentions that it will be plundered by the nations and many nations will be brought up against it. I do not see anything in Ezekiel's prophecies about Tyre that say Nebuchadnezzar would enrich himself with its wealth and completely devastate it and throw its ruins into the sea. Can you please point out where exactly this is stated and then later changed?

  • jam
    jam

    A million people traveling too the promise land,

    a distant less then 400 miles, 40 yrs.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Genesis 49:10

    " The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people."

    According to this prophecy, the sceptre (kingship) would not pass from Judah until Jesus came. In other words, the king of Israel (or later, Judah) would descend from Judah. But the first king, Saul, was of the tribe of Benjamin?

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Many, if not most, Christians claim that the bible is the "Word of God". To look at this claim objectively, first we must define terms.

    Inspired. What this generally means to the Christian is that God spoke inside the minds of the biblical authors, and this was the method by which God transferred the contents of the bible to those who wrote it. There is some disagreement as to whether the authors wrote based upon their own level of intelligence, life experiences, culture and biases, or whether every word they wrote down was literally given to them without alteration. According to Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority, both of these mutually exclusive ideas are the truth-- the authors wrote down the verses exactly as a person would take dictation, word for word, and yet (somehow) they were able to write from their own perspective and personalities. This is obviously a tactic of trying to cover all the bases-- claiming biblical literalism in general, yet leaving the door open to use the excuse of an author's perspective when it suits.

    We are told that the bible is the inspired Word of God. Just what does that really mean? If we think about the concept of inspiration, it is not as black and white as it first appears. The words of the bible were certainly written (and rewritten) by human hands. But what reason do we have for supposing that it did not come solely from the mind of man? Is it a book that no person or group of people could have written? Why not?

    I say that believers claim the bible is the inspired word of God for the simple fact that nobody in their right mind would believe it otherwise. They need it to be an inspiration. Miracles, in an "uninspired" book, would be quickly disbelieved. The stamp of inspiration is given on the words so that they might be enforced. "Uninspired" laws might be more easily ignored than laws that come from God Himself. These obvious truths are two reasons why inspiration is claimed for the bible, but not reasons to believe that the bible was actuallyinspired.

    Believers claim the bible is true because it is the Word of God. They claim it is the Word of God because God says so. How do we know this? Because priests and ministers tell us so, and the reason they give for this is that the bible is a "revelation" (revealed to man by God). And how do they know this? The claim that the bible is a revelation comes from the very book that is claimed to be inspired. And so on, round and round in a circle. (It's called circular logic). It sounds like this:

    The bible is true because it is the Word of God, and we know it is the Word of God because the Bible says so. And if the Bible says so, than it must be true, because we know the Bible is true because it's the Word of God, and God doesn't lie. We know that because the Bible says so. And that must be true, because it's written in the Bible.

    To prove that a book is inspired you must prove the existence of God. You must also prove that this God thinks, and interacts with humans. It is impossible for us to conceive of an infinite being. God is a guess. If the existence of God is ever proved, how can anyone prove that he inspired the writers of the Bible? In the western world, the two ideas-- God and the bible-- seem to be inseparable. But not to everyone. There are some people (such as the Deists) who believe in God, but reject the bible.

    How can one man establish the inspiration of another? How can an inspired man prove that he is inspired? How can he know himself that he is inspired? There is no way to prove inspiration, any more than someone can prove he had a particular dream. The only evidence is the word of someone who couldn't possibly know anything on the subject. No one who claims to have been inspired could know for certain if he had not just had a dream, or a temporary insanity. How is it possible for a human being to know that he is inspired by an infinite being? How can we be certain that what they experienced wasn't all in their heads? That's what we say about the authors of "other" holy books, the ones that we don't accept-- the Koran, say, or the Hindu Vedas. Throughout history, some 40 "holy books" from different religions from all over the world have claimed to be "divinely inspired." What makes any one of those books legitimately inspired, and the rest impostors? What is the criteria that establishes this? Is there any?

    Taking a deeper look at inspiration, some questions naturally arise. Did God use men as instruments, causing them to write His thoughts? Did He take possession of their minds and destroy their wills? If that's the way it was, then why are there so many errors and contradictory accounts in the bible? How could the same story be written very differently? Why does there need to be more than one version of the same story, if the story comes from the mind of God? It is possible that these writers were only partially controlled, so that their mistakes, their ignorance and their prejudices were mingled with the wisdom of God? Or does it cast doubt on the whole idea of inspiration?

    How are we to separate the mistakes of man from the thoughts of God? Can we do this without being inspired ourselves? If the original writers were inspired, then the translators should have been, and so should be the men who tell us what the Bible means today. If God went through the process of inspiring some people to write His Word, and then He let that Word be imperfectly translated by uninspired men, then we are left with an uninspired, flawed book. What is the explanation, then, of the fact that there are dozens of modern translations that are readily available, some versions differing radically from others?

    But of one thing at least we may be certain: an inspired book should certainly excel all the books produced by uninspired men. It should, above all, be true, filled with wisdom and beauty -- perfect. If it is not perfect, what is the point of calling it inspired? What if you can't distinguish it from "ordinary", uninspired books?

    It is claimed that the bible is the only book on earth that is the inspired Word of god. It's plainly obvious that it is not... that it is only the work of uninspired, flawed humans.

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    Leolaia,

    I sent you a private message

  • mP
    mP

    Recovery

    Post 170 of 172
    Since 8/27/2012

    Skeptics Annotated Bible has been shown on numerous occassions to be misleading and inaccurate.

    Mp_>Recovery

    Its not hard to read two scriptures and judge for yourself. The hard bit is finding them to begin with, mostly because the Bible is a long long book.

  • mP
    mP

    Recovery

    Post 170 of 172
    Since 8/27/2012

    Skeptics Annotated Bible has been shown on numerous occassions to be misleading and inaccurate.

    Mp_>Recovery

    Its not hard to read two scriptures and judge for yourself. The hard bit is finding them to begin with, mostly because the Bible is a long long book.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    I do not see anything in Ezekiel's prophecies about Tyre that say Nebuchadnezzar would enrich himself with its wealth and completely devastate it and throw its ruins into the sea. Can you please point out where exactly this is stated and then later changed?

    Quoting v. 7-14:

    7 “For this is what Lord Yahweh says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great assembly of troops. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as those who enter a breached city. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I Yahweh have spoken, declares Lord Yahweh.

    I know that thirdwitness claimed that the plural in v. 12-14 must refer back to the plural "many nations" in v. 3 and that the reference must be to much later unrelated attacks on Tyre by other nations. This has an apologetic aim to save the prophecy from disconfirmation. But this ignores the fact that v. 12-14 describes the conclusion to the campaign by Nebuchadnezzar related in v. 7-11 (after entering through the gates the soldiers then plunder and loot and city, tear down walls, demolish houses, and throw the rubble into the sea). The antecendent is rather the plural "those who enter [the city]" (kimbô'ê) in v. 10: the men enter the city, then plunder the wealth, then break down walls, then throw the rubble into the sea. The expectation that Tyre would be demolished and never rebuilt clearly pertains to this campaign of Nebuchadnezzar's. There is only one single campaign described in the text.

    The reference to "many nations" in v. 3 does not legitimize a reading of the text that divides up the single campaign narrated in v. 7-14 into several different campagins centuries apart by different nations. "Many nations" does not mean that Ezekiel is talking about many different attacks of Tyre by different nations. How many different desolation events are narrated in the lament? Just one. Why does Ezekiel refer to "many nations"? Because "all the nations round about" were vassals of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:10-12, 27:7, 28:10-11; cf. BM 21946), and the king augmented his army with their military forces (cf. Jeremiah 35:11, 2 Kings 24:1-2). Thus Ezekiel earlier said, concerning the siege of Jerusalem and the defeat of Jehoiachin: "Then the nations came against him, those from regions round about. They spread their net for him and he was trapped in their pit. With hooks they pulled him into a cage and brought him to the king of Babylon. They put him in prison so his roar was heard no longer on the mountains of Israel" (Ezekiel 19:8-9). The reference to the plural "nations" does not mean that Jehoiachin was deported to Babylon multiple times by each nation but that the client nations of Nebuchadnezzar were all involved in this event. This event was the siege of Jerusalem in 597 BC, an event rather parallel to the siege of Tyre in the use of military forces. Similarly, the following reference to Nebuchadnezzar's expected attack on Egypt refers to his army as including those from the (plural) nations: "I will put an end to the hoardes of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. He and his army -- the ruthless ones of the nations— will be brought in to destroy the land" (Ezekiel 30:10-11). And regarding Tyre: "I am going to bring foreignersagainst you, the most ruthless ofthe nations, they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom and pierce your shining splendor" (Ezekiel 28:7). Again, the reference is to Nebuchadnezzar's multinational military force, just as the Babylonian king sent Syrians in Jeremiah 35:11 and Chaldeans, Arameans, Moabites, and Ammonites in 2 Kings 24:1-2. Compare with the military force of "Babylonians, Chaldeans, Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them" in Ezekiel 23:23.

    And this is exactly what the context indicates as well. The goyîm rabbîm "many nations" in v. 3 has its consequent in qahal w e `am rab "a great assembly of people" (v. 7) that Nebuchadnezzar brings as his troops. The LXX translates this as "a gathering of very many nations" (sunagògès ethnòn pollòn sphodra).

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit