Posts by JosephAlward

24

Jacob's Branches and Genetics: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

joe alward.

about a year ago i raised this issue of the bible-writers' apparent belief that the color of one's offspring is determined in part by what you're looking at while you're mating.

we didn't obtain then what i considered a satisfactory resolution of this problem, so i'm presenting it once again for the forum's consideration:.

JosephAlward

JOE ALWARD

About a year ago I raised this issue of the Bible-writers' apparent belief that the color of one's offspring is determined in part by what you're looking at while you're mating. We didn't obtain then what I considered a satisfactory resolution of this problem, so I'm presenting it once again for the forum's consideration:
...........................

Jacob's Branches

The Genesis writer tells the story of Labans agreement to give as wages to Jacob, the tender of his goats and lambs, all light-streaked goats and dark-streaked lambs born while the flocks were in his care. To increase the birth rate of streaked animals, Jacob made white stripes on brown tree branches by peeling away dark strips of bark to expose the blond wood underneath, and put these branches in the animals drinking troughs, where they came to drink when they were in heat. After the animals had mated in front of the branches, they bore young that were streaked; the normally brown goats were streaked white, and the normally white lambs were streaked brown.

Its hard to believe that this story can actually be found in the Bible, but it can. Here it is:

"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted." (Genesis 30:37-39)

There is no evidence that this didnt happen, of course. But, if its true that streaked goats and lambs were born, it certainly couldnt have happened because their parents were looking at streaked tree branches as they mated. The editors of the New American Bible seem to be admitting that. Heres what they say in a footnote:

"Jacob's stratagem was based on the widespread notion among simple people that visual stimuli can have prenatal effects on the offspring of breeding animals."

The Genesis writers explanation of the birth of streaked goats and lambs may have made perfect sense to him, for he could not have known anything about the science of genetics. However, if the writer was inspired by a god to record and explain this event, that god evidently either didnt understand genetics, or else it didnt care whether generations of Bible readers would have a childish notion of pre-natal influences. Either way, the Bible contains blatantly false teaching, and is therefore certainly not inerrant. If we cannot trust the Bible in one place, how do we know we can trust it in other places? Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

31

An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

many months ago i offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance.

since that time many new people have joined this forum, so i present this bible "difficulty" once again:.

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

JosephAlward

A Paduan wrote:

You have said...that you realise the bible was never intended to be literal. Indeed the bible itself plainly shows that. Yet, in your hearing, that translates to you as meaning it is not even God's word. Are you simply stuck at that point?

JOE ALWARD

I don't believe just because the Bible is not--and was never intended to be--literally true in all of its parts that all or parts of it are not God's word. It's entirely possible that even those parts which are not literally true could still have come from God. The only thing I've argued is that those parts of the Bible which seem to be contradictory probably would not have come from God. I agree with PlumCrazy's notion that one need not necessarily believe that ALL of the Bible is error-free in order to believe that nevertheless some parts of it may have been inspired by God. My goal in communicating my thoughts to this forum is primarily to present what I think is evidence that parts of the Bible are in error, but I'll never be able to present enough evidence to show that NO part of the Bible could have come from God.

Joseph F. Alward
"A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

31

An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

many months ago i offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance.

since that time many new people have joined this forum, so i present this bible "difficulty" once again:.

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

JosephAlward

JOE ALWARD

A few believers in this forum have asked that we focus our attention on the issues of justice and the role of the court in punishing evil-doers, but that directs the readers' focus away from my main point, which deals with Matthew's claim that Jesus said that we should DO GOOD to those who harm us. Here is the relevant verse:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, DO GOOD to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44)

This statement has NOTHING to do with false witness, or the role of the courts; it has only to do with how one should react when an evil-doer does you harm. Matthew claims that Jesus said we should not only not retaliate against him, but we should be NICE to him. This teaching is at complete odds with the teaching found in 2 Samuel, where we find the Lord approving of David slaughtering his enemies:

David sang to the LORD the words of this song when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies...I call to the LORD, who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my enemies..It is God who arms me with strength "I pursued my enemies and crushed them; I did not turn back till they were destroyed. I crushed them completely, and they could not rise; they fell beneath my feet. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. You made my enemies turn their backs in flight, and I destroyed my foes. (2 Samuel 22: 1-41)

This is an obvious contradiction, and, as I said before, either the author of 2 Samuel was wrong about what God allowed David to do, or else Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said.

Edited by - JosephAlward on 12 October 2002 1:52:14

29

The Sins of the Father: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

joe alward .

the bible contradicts itself in the matter of punishing children for the sins of their fathers.

in one place is says that it is strictly forbidden, but in another the lord speaks of slaughtering sons for the sins of their forefathers, and in yet another place the lord orders the murder of suckling babes.

JosephAlward

JOE ALWARD

The Bible contradicts itself in the matter of punishing children for the sins of their fathers. In one place is says that it is strictly forbidden, but in another the Lord speaks of slaughtering sons for the sins of their forefathers, and in yet another place the Lord orders the murder of suckling babes. Here is the evidence:

The Lords Rule: Don't Punish Children for the Sins of the Fathers

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)

Note: children are NOT to be put to death for the sins of their fathers. Compare this to the contradictory teaching below:

The Lord Breaks His Rule and Punishes the Children

Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities. "I will rise up against them," declares the LORD Almighty. ' I will cut off from Babylon her name and survivors, her offspring and descendants,' declares the LORD.(Isaiah 14:21-22)

Note: children ARE to be slaughtered because of the sins of their forefathers! This is clear evidence that the editors who compiled the various books of the Bible didn't really pay much attention to whether the teachings were consistent. This contradiction makes it clear that not all of the Bible's writings are the word of God.

Perhaps the most famous example of the Lord violating his own rule about not punishing children for the deeds of their fathers is found in 1 Samuel, where we find the Lord telling Samuel that the suckling babes are to be killed:

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

The contradiction between what the writer of Deuteronomy and the writers of Isaiah and 1 Samuel believed about the Lord is just one example among hundreds of disagreement among the Bible writers about the nature of God. If the Bible writers were wrong about the sins of the fathers, then they could have been wrong on every page, and perhaps they were wrong about the resurrection, too.

Joseph F. Alward
"A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Edited by - JosephAlward on 13 October 2002 2:29:21

Edited by - JosephAlward on 13 October 2002 2:29:52

31

An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

many months ago i offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance.

since that time many new people have joined this forum, so i present this bible "difficulty" once again:.

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

JosephAlward

PlmKrzy writes:

But if I am reading you right, it really isn't so much a fascination with the "Bible" as much as "What is it about the Bible" that has captivated mankind for centuries.... What is it about the "Bible" that sucks people in, and what is it about "people" that allow themselves to be sucked into it?

JOE ALWARD

I think you're on the right track, PlmKrzy. I find it endlessly fascinating that a book which so obviously is just a collection of fables about Yahweh, and fictional tales about Jesus, could be thought to be the word of a god. How could it be that otherwise intelligent persons would willingly choose to believe a book in which we find lying snakes, argumentative donkeys, wizards, witches, demons, suns standing still, sticks turning into snakes, a god talking from inside a burning bush, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and, besides that, a god which orders the murder of suckling babes? It is simply amazing how stupid we all can be about some things.

I believe the Bible was never intended by its authors to be taken to be literally true. This is obvious right from the start, in the first two chapters of Genesis, where the editors respectfully placed two completely different stories of the creation, one right after the other, in order not to offend the two different cultures from which the two different stories arose. I present a wealth of other evidence that the Bible is not the word of a god on my web site "A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible," at

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Thanks for you observations, PlmKrzy.

Edited by - JosephAlward on 11 October 2002 14:36:6

31

An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

many months ago i offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance.

since that time many new people have joined this forum, so i present this bible "difficulty" once again:.

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

JosephAlward

PLMKRZY

JosephAlward, gosh you must really hate the bible with all your heart.

JOE ALWARD

Not at all; it's one of my favorite books. It's just that look at it as a very interesting collection of myths about Yahweh, fables and teaching parables about a fictional Jesus, as well as some profoundly important teachings. Among my favorite passages are the ones in Ecclesiastes in which the writer speaks of what God really wants man to do with his life:

"Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do...Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun-- all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

"I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all." (Ecclesiastes 9:1-11NIV)

Jesus says "hate your mother and father" to folks he wanted to recruit as followers, and told the man to "let the dead bury the dead" when he asked if he could first bury his father before running off with Jesus, and he told the rich man he had to give it all up if he wanted to go to heaven. These messages are hardly consistent with the one from Ecclesiastes, above, in which the Bible writer tells us that God really just man to eat, drink, be merry, and enjoy his wife. How come Jesus never told his followers to enjoy life, if he really was the son of the same God referred to in Ecclesiastes?

Joseph F. Alward
"A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Edited by - JosephAlward on 11 October 2002 2:27:55

Edited by - JosephAlward on 11 October 2002 2:30:18

31

An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

many months ago i offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance.

since that time many new people have joined this forum, so i present this bible "difficulty" once again:.

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

JosephAlward

YERUSALYIM
I see no contradiction here. One issue deals with Justice, the other revenge to my mind.

JOE ALWARD
It doesn't matter whether the issue of harming one's enemies is in the context of revenge, or justice. The facts are that 2 Samuel has God APPROVING of David destroying his enemies, while Matthew has God (Jesus) saying that we should do good to our enemies, never mind whether they're enemies because of false accusations. It is clear that Matthew has Jesus saying that the enemies should be loved, not harmed, no matter what the transgression. This is a contradiction, and is one of the reasons we should question whether the Bible is the word of God.

31

An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

many months ago i offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance.

since that time many new people have joined this forum, so i present this bible "difficulty" once again:.

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

JosephAlward

JOE ALWARD

If it's not clear from the "eye for an eye" teaching in Deuteronomy 19 that it's all right for man to lash out against his enemies, then take a look at the story of the Lord obviously approving of King David destroying his enemies:

David sang to the LORD the words of this song when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies...I call to the LORD, who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my enemies..It is God who arms me with strength "I pursued my enemies and crushed them; I did not turn back till they were destroyed. I crushed them completely, and they could not rise; they fell beneath my feet. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. You made my enemies turn their backs in flight, and I destroyed my foes. (2 Samuel 22: 1-41)

This contradicts what the author of the gospel "Matthew" says that Jesus said:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)

and

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44)

Thus, 2 Samuel has God approving of David smiting his enemies, but Matthew has Jesus saying that it is not right even to hate your enemies, let alone do harm to them. This is an obvious contradiction. Either the author of 2 Samuel was wrong about what God allowed David to do, or else Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said. Either way, the Bible is in error.

Joseph F. Alward
"A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Edited by - JosephAlward on 10 October 2002 17:13:19

Edited by - JosephAlward on 10 October 2002 17:14:0

Edited by - JosephAlward on 10 October 2002 17:23:51

Edited by - JosephAlward on 10 October 2002 17:43:49

31

An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

many months ago i offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance.

since that time many new people have joined this forum, so i present this bible "difficulty" once again:.

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

JosephAlward

Jerusalyim wrote:

I disagree with your assessment. The Duet 19 verses would be applied in cases brought before the priests, and it would be the priests, not the one agreived, who metted out justice. The Matthew 5 verses were dealing with the situation where by the common man had brought this verse into usage for the purposes of revenge, something it wasn't deigned to do. Jesus is addressing revenge in personal relations, Duet 19 actually applied to "court" cases.

JOE ALWARD

So, do you believe that Matthew wanted us to believe that Jesus was saying, in essence, "Don't punish the transgressor yourself. Let the court do it for you." ??

31

An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error

by JosephAlward in

many months ago i offered the "eye for an eye" conflict as evidence that the bible cannot be trusted to provide non-contradictory moral guidance.

since that time many new people have joined this forum, so i present this bible "difficulty" once again:.

scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

JosephAlward

Yerusalyim wrote:

Here's my understanding of the issues at hand. Duet 19 is specifically addressing the issue of false witnesses. The basic line of reasoning would be that if someone KNOWINGLY bore false witness that they should receive the punishment that would have been metted out were the accussed party guilty. These lines of eye for eye, tooth for tooth have been seen by Rabbis to be restrictive rather than permissive. i.e. you can do this much, but no more.

JOE ALWARD

According to you, the "false witness" law in Deuteronomy 19 says that if a man had intended that you be harmed in some way by his false testimony, then it is your right to demand that he be harmed in that same way. I agree with you, but that does not remove the contradiction between Deuteronomy and Matthew. The author of the book "Matthew" claims that Jesus said that if harm is done to you--such as by someone giving false testimony against you, you should turn the other cheek, and do good for the person. Thus, according to Matthew, Jesus is essentially saying that the law in Deuteronomy 19 should not be followed, that the person bearing false witness should not be punished, but instead should have good things done for him. This doesn't make sense, so either Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said, or else Jesus disavowed scriptural law, and that doesn't make sense, either.

Joseph F. Alward
"A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html