The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 8 - The Theory of Relativity

by RunningMan 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  RunningMan

  THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
  
  I really shouldn’t be so hard on the Bible. After all, the theory of relativity wasn’t discovered until the 20th century, so you can’t blame the Bible writers for making a few mistakes. Even modern people get confused when attempting to explain the vagaries of space and time. So, it should come as no surprise that the Bible gets tangled when dealing with the relativity of its day. But, then again, the Bible does claim to be perfect, error free, and infallible.
  So, let’s take a look at ancient relativity - the family relationships, ages, and correspondancies that are recorded in the Bible, to see if the writers were able to keep their “begats” straight.
  Young lust
  Apparently the Hebrews had no concept of statutory rape or, as they say in slang, jail bait. It is recorded that King Ahaz fathered a child at an age that is certainly unusual, if not downright impossible. Consider the following:
  Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. - 2 Kings 16:2
  And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Hezeki'ah his son reigned in his stead. - 2 Kings 16:20
  In the third year of Hoshe'a son of Elah, king of Israel, Hezeki'ah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. - 2 Kings 18:1,2
  So, Ahaz died at age 36. His son Hezekiah, began ruling in his place. Hezekiah was 25 years old at the time. This means that Ahaz must have fathered a child when he was 10 or 11 years old - no need for Viagra here.
  But, if you think this was an amazing accomplishment, just look at what comes next.
  
  Now I’m my own grandpa
  Lack of respect is a common complaint from parents who have teenagers. But just imagine the situation that Ahaziah’s father found himself in.
  He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem; and he departed with no one's regret. They buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahazi'ah his youngest son king in his stead; for the band of men that came with the Arabs to the camp had slain all the older sons. So Ahazi'ah the son of Jeho'ram king of Judah reigned. Ahazi'ah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. - 2 Chronicles 21:20 - 22:2
  Applying a little bit of mathematics to this account yields an interesting conclusion. Jehoram died at age 40. He was replaced by his son Ahaziah, who was 42 years old. This means that Ahaziah was two years older than his father.
  An even more amazing statement is that Ahaziah was the youngest of Jehoram’s sons. So, some of Jehoram’s sons were even more than two years older than him.
  I have to ask: When Jehoram was young, did he have to ask his children for the keys to the chariot?
  
  The In-laws and Out-laws of Moses
  Most of us have our hands full dealing with just one set of in-laws. Moses, unfortunately, was in the unenviable position of having no less than three fathers in law. Consider the following scriptures:
  When they came to their father Reu'el, he said, "How is it that you have come so soon today?" They said, "An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and even drew water for us and watered the flock." He said to his daughters, "And where is he? Why have you left the man? Call him, that he may eat bread." And Moses was content to dwell with the man, and he gave Moses his daughter Zippo'rah. - Ex 2:18-21
  Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Mid'ian; - Ex 3:1
  Now Heber the Ken'ite had separated from the Ken'ites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far away as the oak in Za-anan'nim, which is near Kedesh. - Judges 4;11
  Ruel, Jethro, and Hobab are all credited with the position of being Moses’ father in law. This is especially confusing when you consider that two of the above references were supposedly written by Moses himself. I guess if Moses couldn’t keep them straight, you can’t blame the writer of Judges for getting it wrong, too.
  The 5 sons of childless Michal
  So far, we have seen child parents, inverse reproduction, and in-laws with split personalities (this last one is not particularly rare, anymore). Our freak show would not be complete without at least one childless mother. So, voila! Here she is:
  As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death. - 2 Samuel 6:23 (Youngs)
  and the king taketh the two sons of Rizpah daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal daughter of Saul whom she bare to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite, - 2 Samuel 21:8 (Youngs)
  What more can I say?
  The family tree is still growing
  The Bible is well known for its long lists of “begats”. Most bible readers have been bored to tears by the seemingly endless lists of genealogies. But, if you take the time to actually read them, instead of skipping over them, you will find numerous errors. Take for instance the family of that beloved Bible character Arpachshad:
  These are the descendants of Shem. When Shem was a hundred years old, he became the father of Arpach'shad two years after the flood... When Arpach'shad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah; - Genesis 11:10-12
  So, the line of descent looked like this: Shem, Arpaschad, Shelah. This order is backed up by an identical ordering in Genesis 10:22-24. But, after a few centuries, the family tree seems to have sprouted. Here it is according to Luke:
  the son of Serug, the son of Re'u, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Ca-i'nan, the son of Arphax'ad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, - Luke 3:35, 36
  Notice that Luke’s chronology is ordered like this: Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah. There is an extra generation recorded in Luke.
  You’d think these guys could get together a little bit better. That’s pretty sloppy copying for someone who is infallible.
  
  
  Jesus
  The early Hebrews were obsessed with keeping their line of descent open, so that it would be possible for the Messiah to come through them. It was a shame and a dishonour to have no children.
  They probably shouldn’t have worried so much, because apparently, there was room for just about everyone. When the Bible finally got around to producing a Messiah and recording his lineage, in typical Bible fashion, it went too far. Instead of telling one concise, believable story, it had to tell it twice - both of them different, and mutually exclusive of each other.
  In Matthew, chapter one, Jesus’ line of descent is detailed. It begins with Abraham, and traces his lineage down through each successive generation until it reaches Jesus in verse 16:
  
  
  
  
  Luke chapter 3 gives a parallel account. It traces Jesus ancestry in the opposite order, beginning with Jesus and tracing back all the way to Adam. However, the order is not the only difference from Matthew’s version. Luke notes numerous differences in the line of descent, and attributes Joseph’s parentage as follows:
  
  Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, - Luke 3:23
  One of many noteworthy discrepancies between these lists is the parenthood of Joseph, alternately attributed to Jacob and Heli.
  Now, some persons have tried to explain away this discrepancy by saying that one account gives the lineage of Jesus through his father Joseph, while the other one gives his lineage through his mother, Mary. Unfortunately, this is not possible. The above quotes show clearly that, in both cases, Joseph is named while Mary is ignored.
  If this mistake isn’t obvious enough for everyone, we must also deal with another difficulty. Tracing Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph is pointless. According to the Bible, Joseph was not Jesus’ father. He was only the step father. Jesus supposedly descended from Mary and Jehovah, so, those two chapters in the Bible can be scrapped - not only for their errors, but also for their irrelevance.
  
  David
  Have you ever known a family that had so many children they couldn’t keep track of them? Apparently, King David was descended from just such a family.
  Jesse was the father of Eli'ab his first-born, Abin'adab the second, Shim'ea the third, Nethan'el the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh; - 1 Chronicles 2:13-15
  So, David is clearly listed as the seventh son of Jesse.
  And Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, "The LORD has not chosen these." And Samuel said to Jesse, "Are all your sons here?" And he said, "There remains yet the youngest, but behold, he is keeping the sheep." And Samuel said to Jesse, "Send and fetch him; for we will not sit down till he comes here." - 1 Samuel 16:10, 11
  Notice that all seven of Jesse’s sons were rejected by Samuel. The eighth son, David, was out with the sheep.
  Apparently, someone couldn’t count very well
  Belshazzar - The Son I Never Had
  In the book of Daniel, a King by the name of Belshazzar is mentioned. Historical records tell us very little about him, except that he was the son of Nabonidus, and carried some regal authority. He plays a fairly large role in the the story of Daniel.
  But, the Bible identifies him, not as Nabonidus’ son, but as Nebuchadnezzar’s son:
  Belshaz'zar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver which Nebuchadnez'zar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem...
  
  - Daniel 5:2
  There are four other references to Belshazzar as being the son of Nebuchadnezzzar (Daniel 5:11, 5:13, 5:18, and 5:22).
  In reality, Belshazzar was no relation to Nebuchadnezzar. His father, Nabonidus, ruled four kings after Nebuchadnezzar. So, once again, the Bible messes up on the theory of relativity.
• 

  Crumpet

  Brilliant research Running Man! I am again very impressed.

  I remember being taught if someone tells you the bible contradicts itself you can tell them they are wrong - an um that was it. No back up, no examples. Just they are wrong and we are right!

  The one with David being the 8th son is one of the simplest examples there to explain and one I can remember if i ever get the chance to use it!

  Thanks - keep up the good work!

  crumpet
• 

  DannyBloem

  Like your way of making things clear. Powerfull but with humour.

  Anyway time can be different for diverent observers in the universe right, so maybe this explains something

  Danny
• 

  stillajwexelder

  AS usual a great read

  Thankyou
• 

  VM44

  Concerning the 2 Chronicles 21:20-22:2 example which implies the son was two years older than the father, the New World Translation gives the following translation for 2 Chron 22:2:

  Twenty-two years old was A·ha·zi´ah when he began to reign, and for one year he reigned in Jerusalem.

  What?!! The original "Forty Two" in the manuscript has been changed to "Twenty-two"!

  So much for the NWT being a literal translation of the Original Holy Scriptures!

  The NWT translators felt they had to correct the Scriptures in this instance!

  --VM44
• 

  DaCheech

  And the NWT people claim they are not prophets!

  They know what the scriptures were meant to have in them!
• 

  RunningMan

  "What?!! The original "Forty Two" in the manuscript has been changed to "Twenty-two"!"
  
  
  Actually, I find that quite a bit. You see, the original Hebrew word for 42 is "Forticus Twoicus", which apparently means when translated, "twenty two". Confusing, isn't it?
• 

  VM44

  Now the question is:....Did the Bible writer intend to write "forty two" or "twenty two", or even perhaps some other numerical value?

  How is the number "twenty-two" (22) written in Biblical Hebrew?

  I hope the answer is not that "42" is literally written down, but Bible REALLY means 22 instead of 42. I hate that sort of explaination!

  --VM44

  PS. Number notations have to have precise meaning if any system of writing them down is to be of any use.
• 

  GetBusyLiving

  Runningman, your ability to destroy cherished spiritual documents is very impressive. Keep up the great work!

  GBL
• 

  Rex

  Hmmmmm, you seem to be trying very hard to convince yourself that the Bible cannot be the word of God. Deep down, you are probably struggling with the idea that you have missed something after leaving the WTS. Are you actually worried that there is a final accounting in your future? You know, something like 'every knee shall bow'? 'Apologetics' is the scriptural response to critics of the inspiration of scripture. Unlike JW apologetics, this is not done is a approach that involves multiple topics taken out of context. That's what JWs do when they encounter resistance at the door step! They jump from subject to subject without getting the context of any scripture, nor learning anything. Have a Nice Day! Rex