The Bible is a book which makes extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This means that the Bible should be held to a standard much higher than books which don't make such claims. But for some strange reason when inconsistencies or even idiotic comments in the Bible are pointed out to true believers, it doesn't seem to bother them. They base their entire lives on that book without even examining it and testing it for its veracity.
If it can be shown that the Bible has many internal inconsistencies, would not a reasonable person then conclude that other stories and miracles should be called into question? I would think so.
Biblical anachronisms are a good place to start. True believers point to Bible "prophecies" that were fulfilled in ancient time as "proof" that the Bible was inspired by God Himself. A commonly used example by the WTS uses the verses in Daniel 8:20,21 which "foretold" the rise of the Medo-Persian and Greek empires. However, if those verses were written AFTER the fact, they would be nothing remarkable at all. Instead, they would be shown to be a fraud, faking a "prophecy" and presenting it as if it were one.
Is there any evidence that will prove parts of the Bible were written much later than actual events, yet pretending to be written by eyewitnesses to those events?
Yes, there is.
"Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel." - Gen. 36:31.
The WTS claims that Moses wrote the book of Genesis while the Israelites were wandering around the desert eating stuff that fell from the sky. (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) The above verse talks about Israelite kings in the past tense. Moses lived over 350 years BEFORE King Saul began reigning in Israel. If this anachronism in Genesis is so blatantly obvious, why should we believe stories at talking snakes and wordwide floods in that same book?
Note that 1 Chron. 1:43 has the exact same wording as Gen. 36:31: "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel." Yet the WTS says these words were written in 460 B.C. by Ezra over eleven hundred years AFTER "Moses" wrote those same words!
"After that Moses the servant of Jehovah died there in the land of Mo'ab at the order of Jehovah. And he proceeded to bury him in the valley in the land of Mo'ab in front of Bethpeor and nobody has come to know his grave down to this day" - Deut. 34: 6.
The WTS teaches that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy in 1473 B.C. If so, how could Moses describe his own death and secret burial in the past tense in this same book?
Here's another little gem in that same book: "But there has never yet risen up a prophet in Israel like Moses whom Jehovah knew face to face." - Deut. 34:10. Once again note that this is phrased as if it was written a LONG time after the death of Moses: "there has never yet risen up a prophet...like Moses."
What kind of a man was Moses? Well, let "Moses" himself tell you: "And the man Moses was by far the meekest of all the men who were upon the surface of the ground." - Num. 12:3
Note again the use of the past tense: "Moses was..." Would a living man writing about his own life describe his current status in the past tense? Would he write about himself in the third person? Would you think I was "meek" if I said about myself "Farkel was BY FAR the meekest of all the men who were upon the surface of the ground." NO! You'd think I was an arrogant asshole! By the way, what's this about men "who were upon the surface of the ground" crap, anyway? Were there any men ABOVE the ground? Could men below the ground (i.e. dead) be considered to be "meek?" Sigh.
Speaking of "meek" men, what did "Joshua" have to say about himself in a book he allegedly wrote? "So Jehovah proved to be with Joshua, and his fame came to be in all the earth." - Josh. 6:27. Yeah, that's "meek" alright! If Joshua's fame came to be in all the earth why aren't there writings from other cultures describing his exploits?
Not to be outdone by his mentor Moses, "Joshua" decides to describe his own death and his age at time of death: "And it came about that after these things Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Jehovah, gradually died at the age of a hundred and ten years. So they buried him in the territory of his inheritance in Timnathserah..." - Josh. 24:29. Again note the use of the past tense and third person as Joshua "prophecies" about his death and burial.
Here are a few more "Joshua" anachronisms which I believe solidly confirm that not only did Joshua not write the book about his life, but the book was written long after he died:
"And they proceeded to raise up over him a big pile of stones, down to this day. At this Jehovah turned away from his hot anger. ("Jehovah" is always pissed at something or someone.) That is why the name of that place has been called Low Plain of Achor, down to this day" - Josh. 7:26
Here's one last example, but there are many more which could be cited.
"By the rivers of Babylon--there we sat down. We also wept when we remembered Zion." - Psalms 137:1. The WTS states that Psalms was written by "David, Moses and others." The above verse can only be understood to mean the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. That means this verse was written almost 900 years AFTER the time of Moses, and about 400 years after the time of David.
All of the books I've mentioned have no claimed author. They are anonymous. They are written mostly in the third person as one would write when one was compiling a chronicle of history. They are internally inconsistent.
Given these reasons, any reasonable person would be all the more skeptical about their claim for divine inspiration, would he not?
Farkel, with thanks to Thomas Paine
"Down to This Day"
by Farkel 14 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Farkel
-
Celia
oh brother, I have to find that Thomas Paine book now.... Still fighting with Holy Blood, Holy Grail here... Good for my gray cells, I'm sure
The WTS claims that Moses wrote the book of Genesis while the Israelites were wandering around the desert eating stuff that fell from the sky. (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)
Love that laugh of yours Farkel
-
Leolaia
There are many other indicators in Deuteronomy that is was written in Judah many centuries later than the time it was purportedly written.
(1) In 2:12, there is another anachronism: "The Horites too lived in Seir at one time; there however were dispossessed and exterminated by the sons of Esau who settled there in place of them, just as Israel did in their own land, the heritage they received from Yahweh". Here, an allusion to the conquest of the Israelites of Canaan and "receiving" their heritage of the land is described in the past tense.
(2) There is another "down to this day" note in Deuteronomy 3:14: "Since Jair son of Manasseh occupied the whole confederation of Argob as far as the frontiers of the Geshurites and Maacathites, he gave his name to those towns that are still called down to this day the Encampments of Jair".
(3) The frequent use of the phrase "beyond the Jordan" (b'br h-yrdn) for the land east of the Jordan River in Deuteronomy 1:1, 5; 3:8, 4:41, 46-49, exactly as in Numbers 22:1; Joshua 2:10, 7:7, 9:10; Judges 5:17, 10:8, etc. shows that the author was a resident of western Palestine.
(4) The law concerning the place of sacrifice is also from an age much later than the supposed time of Moses. Deuteronomy insists with great emphasis that all sacrifices are to be offered only at a single sanctuary, the spot chosen by Yahweh "out of all the tribes to set his name there" (12:1-28), but the earlier practice is the one allowed in the law of Exodus 20:24 which permits altars anywhere to be built for sacrifice in any part of the land without prejudice -- and that this older law was followed in the days of the early kingdom is attested in 1 Samuel 9:12-14, 10:3, 5; 1 Kings 18:30 which would have been forbidden by the later law in Deuteronomy.
(5) The "law of the kingdom" in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 is colored by reminiscenes of the monarchy of David and Solomon; compare v. 14 with 2 Samuel 5:1, v. 16 with 1 Samuel 8:11, 2 Samuel 8:4, v. 17 with 1 Kings 11:1, and v. 18 with 1 Samuel 10:25 and 1 Kings 2:3.
(6) The terms of Deuteronomy 17:8-13 (cf. 19:17), in which the constitution of the supreme tribunal is not prescribed but represented as already in existence, appear to presuppose the existence of the judicature which was instituted much later by Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 19:8-11).
(7) In Deuteronomy 16:22, we read that "you shall not set up a standing stone which Yahweh your God hates". Would Isaiah, if he had known of such a law, have adopted the standing stone in Isaiah 19:19 (a "pillar dedicated to Yahweh") as a symbol of the future conversion of Egypt to the true faith? Would he have also claimed that Yahweh asked the people to "weep and mourn, to shave their heads, to put on sackcloth" (22:12) when Yahweh had already commanded the people in Deuteronomy 14:1 to never "gash yourselves or shave your foreheads"? Isaiah appears to be ignorant of the laws in Deuteronomy, suggesting that the book dates later than the eighth century BC.
(8) In the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, we find many indicators of a late date. The period of the exodus from Egypt, and of the occupation of Canaan, lies in a distant past: "Think back to the days of old, think over the years, down the ages, ask of your father, let him teach you, of your elders, let them enlighten you. When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided the sons of men, he fixed their boundaries according to the sons of God, but Yahweh's portion was his people, Jacob his share of inheritance". Israel is described as settled in Canaan in v. 13-14, and had even already lapsed into idolatry (v. 15-19), even to the verge of ruin (v. 20-30), but Yahweh has promised to recuse his people from their foes (v. 34-43). Thus, Israel's imagined apostasy, and consequent disasters, lie in the writer's past. This is not an imagined future from the standpoint of Moses but something that is explicitly described as in "the days of old". The decadence of Israel while residing in the Promised Land is described as in the past: "Jacob ate and had his full, Jeshrun [Israel] grew fat, turned restive. You grew fat, gross, bloated. He disowned the God who made him" (v. 15).
(9) In the Blessing of Moses, Deuteronomy 33:27-28 looks back to the conquest of Canaan as in the past: "And he drove out the enemy from before you, and said, 'Destroy!' So Israel dwelt securely upon a land of corn and wine". In v. 23, 29-23, we encounter geographical details about where the various tribes were located in the land -- again indicating a time after the tribes had formed in their respective localities. The silence on the tribe of Simeon presupposes a late period, when the tribe was already absorbed into Judah (cf. Judges 1:3 on the unity between Judah and Simeon), and v. 12 alludes to the Temple in Jerusalem (compare Joshua 15:8, 18:11, 28).
-
RunningMan
Genesis 14:14
"And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan." The city of Dan was named after the founder of the tribe of Dan, specifically, Jacob's son. How could a city be named after Dan during the time of Abram (Dan's great grandfather)? Besides, Moses died before the promised land was settled, so how could he write a book that lists one of the cities in the future land? -
RunningMan
And, here is a copy of Thomas Paine's Age of Reason: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml
-
metatron
For me, I loved Paine's argument about the "multiplicity of worlds". If the Sun is a star, why not countless other
stars as suns over countless other earths?
It bothered me also that succeeding generations of Israelites seemed to have little knowledge or traditional practice
of Mosaic law commands, as if these had been made up later and attributed to Moses. Also, somethings seem radically
contradictory between the Law and Israelite customs - divination is condemned but dreams, visions and throwing "lots"
( as the apostles did when selecting Judas' replacement) are OK.
metatron
-
greven
Good stuff Farkel!
My personal favourite anachronism is the spinning sword guarding the entrance to the garden of Eden.
Now what would a weapon of war do in a time when there were just two people?
It also suggests that God is the inventor of the first weapon of war...
Greven
ps. did Paine make a Deist out of you or were there other reasons? I ask this because I found his case against the Bible as the word of God strong, yet his case for Deism rather weak...
-
Farkel
: did Paine make a Deist out of you or were there other reasons? I ask this because I found his case against the Bible as the word of God strong, yet his case for Deism rather weak...
I became a Deist on my own. It's as impossible to make a strong case for Deism as it to make a strong case for Theism, Pantheism, or even Atheism.
There's either:
1) No God
2) A God who doesn't intervene in human affairs
3) A God who does intervene in human affairs
or,
4) Everything we believe to be real isn't real at all, just some sort of a "movie" we've created for ourselves and our enjoyment.
Take yer pick!
Farkel -
mysterio91
What is the Matrix??
HA!
-
greven
1) No God
2) A God who doesn't intervene in human affairs
3) A God who does intervene in human affairs
or,
4) Everything we believe to be real isn't real at all, just some sort of a "movie" we've created for ourselves and our enjoyment.
Take yer pick!Since the existence of God is an extraordinairy claim position number 1 would (nay: should) be our default position. Positions 2 and 3 require sufficient proof in order to sway us out of position one. 'Proof' could be evidence or logical argumentation that makes the position argued for more probable than the other ones. Since I haven't encountered any evidence for a God in any form, I'm still in gear 1 so to speak. I won't touch upon position 4.
Greven