• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Favorite Bible error

Skwim

Veteran Member
It is not wise, IMO, to quickly assume the Bible is in error when seeming discrepancies are found. Many modern translations list Ahaziah's age at 22 in both Chronicles and Kings. Using a translation or version over 400 years old creates such confusion.
Out of the 36 versions I checked 17 said 22 years and 19 said 40 years. So it's not a meaningful point you're making at all. But more importantly, and telling, is that if one looks at the translated Hebrew word for the number in question in a Bible like the ESV (English Standard Version), which says "22," Strong's gives h705 אַרְבָּעִים 'arba`iym, , the word for 40.

The traditional explanation about Michal is that Merab, Michal’s older sister, died early after having borne five sons to Adriel and that Michal thereafter undertook the bringing up of her sister’s five boys, thus resulting in their being spoken of as her sons.
So, this is in the Bible? NOPE! Making up stories to explain discrepancies may be satisfying to the believer, but they hold absolutely no water for anyone who values reason and common sense.

Isaac Leeser’s translation reads at 2 Samuel 21:8: “And the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she had brought up for Adriel.” Michal herself had no children of her own, as ll Samuel 6:23 affirms.
And as I pointed out to Thana, "Ah ha, the old John Gill theory, which the ignores that fact that the Hebrew word, ילדה, which Gill claims to mean "brought up," everywhere else in the Bible means "gave birth to."---68 times alone in Genesis. Why this peculiar, one-time irrational translation here? Because it conveniently dispenses with the contradiction."

Similarly, the numbers at 2 Samuel and Chronicles of Israels fighting men may indicate that Samuel omitted some men Chronicles included in the account. As Insight on the Scriptures explains: "The two accounts may have reckoned the number from different viewpoints. For example, it is possible that members of the standing army and/or their officers were counted or omitted. And different methods of reckoning may have caused a variation in the listing of certain men, as to whether they were under Judah or Israel. "
Again, mere fictional supposition, "may indicate," and " it is possible" gets turned into certainty, establishing a basis for denying the contradiction. But as I said about the ridiculous claim about Merab, Michal’s older sister, making up stories to explain discrepancies may be satisfying to the believer, but they hold absolutely no water for anyone who values reason and common sense.

I find amazing the Bible's accuracy in covering historical events spanning thousands of years.
An accuracy you can't even begin to validate. You're just taking it on the basis that the Bible can't be wrong. You do realize that such an argument, Begging the Question, is fallacious don't you?
 
Last edited:

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Out of the 36 versions I checked 17 said 22 years and 19 said 40 years. So it's not a meaningful point you're making at all. But more importantly, and telling, is that if one looks at the translated Hebrew word for the number in question in a Bible like the ESV (English Standard Version), which says "22," Strong's gives h705 אַרְבָּעִים 'arba`iym, , the word for 40.

So, this is in the Bible? NOPE! Making up stories to explain discrepancies may be satisfying to the believer, but they hold absolutely no water for anyone who values reason and common sense.

And as I pointed out to Thana, "Ah ha, the old John Gill theory, which the ignores that fact that the Hebrew word, ילדה, which Gill claims to mean "brought up," everywhere else in the Bible means "gave birth to."---68 times alone in Genesis. Why this peculiar, one-time irrational translation here? Because it conveniently dispenses with the contradiction."

Again, mere fictional supposition, "may indicate," and " it is possible" gets turned into certainty, establishing a basis for denying the contradiction. But as I said about the ridiculous claim about Merab, Michal’s older sister, making up stories to explain discrepancies may be satisfying to the believer, but they hold absolutely no water for anyone who values reason and common sense.

An accuracy you can't even begin to validate. You're just taking it on the basis that the Bible can't be wrong. You do realize that such an argument, Begging the Question, is fallacious don't you?

If one is searching for a reason to deny the Scriptures are inspired by God, any minor seeming discrepancy will convince you. The accuracy of numerous Bible accounts, once challenged by Bible critics, have since been shown to be accurate in every detail. Just one example: At one time, prominent scholars held that Assyrian King Sargon II, whose name appears in the Bible at Isaiah 20:1, never existed. In 1843, however, near present-day Khorsabad, Iraq, Sargon’s palace was discovered. Previously denied by Bible critics, Sargon II is now one of the best-known kings of Assyria.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
If one is searching for a reason to deny the Scriptures are inspired by God, any minor seeming discrepancy will convince you.
Not searching at all, but Biblical contradictions often do come up when looking into the credibility of the book. And they're particularly hard to forget when you have Christian fundies constantly trying to convince everyone that everything in the Bible is true.

The accuracy of numerous Bible accounts, once challenged by Bible critics, have since been shown to be accurate in every detail.
The accuracy has been shown to be accurate??? Perhaps you'd like to rethink that. In any case, the notion that all the challenges to the accuracy of the bible have been put to rest, which lets you sleep roasty-toasty at night, is fine, but it simply doesn't fly in the light of day.
 
Last edited:

miodrag

Member
There's a version of this in the Islamic tradition narrated by ibn Hanbal.

When Jesus says 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone', John the Baptist strolls up and smashes her head in with a rock :grimacing:

Noo, it is not like that. Instead:
After saying these words, Jesus could hear that someone in the crowd bent down picking up the rock. Without turning, he said: "Come on, Mom, how many times have I told you not to interfere when I'm preaching."
 

miodrag

Member
These are not my favorite, still I would like to see them explained:

Exodus 17,14: the "blotted" name of Amalek ended up preserved in one of the most popular books ever

Exodus 20,13: "Thou shalt not kill" vs Exodus 32,27: "Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor."

Leviticus 11, 5-6: hyrax and rabbit are ruminants

Leviticus 11, 20: insects have four legs
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
If one is searching for a reason to deny the Scriptures are inspired by God, any minor seeming discrepancy will convince you. The accuracy of numerous Bible accounts, once challenged by Bible critics, have since been shown to be accurate in every detail. Just one example: At one time, prominent scholars held that Assyrian King Sargon II, whose name appears in the Bible at Isaiah 20:1, never existed. In 1843, however, near present-day Khorsabad, Iraq, Sargon’s palace was discovered. Previously denied by Bible critics, Sargon II is now one of the best-known kings of Assyria.
What about the Book of Daniel? Are its prophecies accurate? Was it written at the time claimed? If not, it'll go straight to the top of my all time favorite Bible error.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
If one is searching for a reason to deny the Scriptures are inspired by God, any minor seeming discrepancy will convince you. The accuracy of numerous Bible accounts, once challenged by Bible critics, have since been shown to be accurate in every detail. Just one example: At one time, prominent scholars held that Assyrian King Sargon II, whose name appears in the Bible at Isaiah 20:1, never existed. In 1843, however, near present-day Khorsabad, Iraq, Sargon’s palace was discovered. Previously denied by Bible critics, Sargon II is now one of the best-known kings of Assyria.
Egypt really exists, so the Egyptian myths are true.
Greece really exists, so the Greek myths are true.
China ...
Etc, etc...
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Leviticus 11, 5-6: hyrax and rabbit are ruminants
I picked this one out because Answers in Genesis gives one of the worst (could it be otherwise) explanations why Leviticus 11:6 "The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you." and Deuteronomy 14:7 "However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you." are not incorrect. AiG simply lies.

"Consider what rabbits do. They engage in an activity called cecotrophy. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes. Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.

Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.

But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another.

Also, most reference material on rabbit digestion says that the cecotrope pellet is swallowed whole and found intact in the rabbit stomach. However, experts have observed that rabbits keep the cecotrophe in the mouth for a time before swallowing. So even though the mucin membrane covering the cecotrope is not broken, the rabbit is able to knead it in its mouth before swallowing, possibly to enhance the process of redigestion."
source
Bald face lie
Completely irrelevant.

Note.
CUD:
Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach to the mouth to be chewed for the second time. More accurately, it is a bolus of semi-degraded food regurgitated from the reticulorumen of a ruminant. Cud is produced during the physical digestive process of rumination.
Source: Wikipedia

 

corynski

Reality First!
Premium Member
Curious item at John12:23....
Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds........

Wrong...... If it dies, it dies and doesn't produce seed.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What about the Book of Daniel? Are its prophecies accurate? Was it written at the time claimed? If not, it'll go straight to the top of my all time favorite Bible error.
Yes, Daniel's prophecies have been proven remarkably accurate. One example is the exact year the Messiah would appear. (Daniel 9:25-27) That prophecy also foretells the Messiah would be put to death, and that Jerusalem would be destroyed. Even the most die-hard of Daniel's critics must admit that Daniel was completed well before the time Jesus appeared as the Christ.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Egypt really exists, so the Egyptian myths are true.
Greece really exists, so the Greek myths are true.
China ...
Etc, etc...
The Bible critics who denied Sargon existed must have labeled him a "myth." That is, until he was shown to be a historical reality. And so it goes with those who deny the historicity of the Bible.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
And so it goes with those who deny the historicity of the Bible.

No it factually does not.

You only showed a small example of how some myths may have a historical core.

Much has been proven false by all credible standards. You have always refused credible knowledge on these topics.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I don't mean to be rude, but I do want to honestly ask Christians. A JW that used to come here preached about the devil nature of Catholicism and how it is paganism. Granted I disagreed, but he does have a point. He says, "Even if it Catholicism is good they still use pagan elements in their worship. Why associate yourselves with paganism regardless of the results" I don't remember the exact wording; and, that was the gist.

My question to Christians (and even Jews and Muslims), why associate yourselves with sacred text that has anything with murder in it? It could be for good reasons (like pagan elements make Catholicism a beautiful religion and brings a lot of people to Christ), and so does murder? Does your experiences with God override not only what the Bible means but what is in the Bible itself?

How do you see these things in the Bible in a good light? The JW looks at pagan elements with such distastes where when I go into a Catholic Church and watch the consecration of the Eucharist, I am in total awe. Likewise, while a anti-christian atheist may look at the Bible and the murder with distaste and loathing, a Christian (Jew or Muslim) may see the words in their sacred text as beautiful and a way to bring one to spiritual growth etc.

Just as the JW doesn't see the connection between using pagan elements within the context of Christian teachings to bring one to Christ, so does some of us who are not Christian do not see the connection between the events of the Bible metaphor or not as a tool or foundation for spiritual growth.

If you had read all this, please reflect on this. It just dawned on me really, after reading these posts.

:herb:

I will not question/attack your answer. I'm just wondering how you see one thing connected to another metaphor or not and good experience or not.

That is honestly one of the huge reasons I left Christianity. The practice is very beautiful. The connection to Christ through the Eucharist cannot be described in words. The repenting is a full cleansing that no person can ever do (confession is forgiveness by god not to the priest). And so and so forth.

However, because Christianity is associated with horrible acts and such it is not something I find a good foundation of spiritual growth. It is lying to myself, a huge contradiction to my vary practice to say "I am a Christian" but say "Naw, don't look at that, that's just a metaphor." or however we excuse God's intentions and actions. That's just me.

Where is the logic in finding good in Just that is not defined by teaching someone what is right but killing others to teach it instead.

Metaphor or not, it doesn't make sense.

I believe the JW's like to demonize anything Pagan but not everything Pagan is evil . IMO the JW's do more harm than good in taking this approach.

As for God punishing the wicked, I don't believe there is a better way to handle wickedness. Do you have one? What will you do congratulate the wicked on doing evil things?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I believe the JW's like to demonize anything Pagan but not everything Pagan is evil . IMO the JW's do more harm than good in taking this approach.

As for God punishing the wicked, I don't believe there is a better way to handle wickedness. Do you have one? What will you do congratulate the wicked on doing evil things?

The second half. If my adult child killed someone else, I would not

1. Disown them
2. Punish him (he's an adult)
3. Teach him a lesson of pain and torture
4. Tell him that it is not his choice to make amends if that is what he wants to do

How would I approach the wickedness (as you say)? By....

5. I will hold him accountable to his actions by telling him how I feel about it and how wrong it is etc but I will not stomp over him and direspect who he as a person based on what he did

6. There are no rewards for taking a life to save one

Would I congradulate my son for doing such a horrible thing?

Of course not! That would just mean I can tell my son 5. and whatever he wants to do with that knowledge I would not hold him accoutable. He is an adult. He suffers the consequences for his actions through his karma. No outside external force or being, like myself, should interfer unless to save others or himself.

EDIT: Where is the logic in finding good in Just that is not defined by teaching someone what is right but killing others to teach it instead?

The first half

I try not to put Christian denominations down. He had a good point and I gave him my hat on it. I just used his point as a backdrop to the question I had of believing the good in something even though its connected to bad things: metaphor, for the good, or not.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
The second half. If my adult child killed someone else, I would not

1. Disown them
2. Punish him (he's an adult)
3. Teach him a lesson of pain and torture
4. Tell him that it is not his choice to make amends if that is what he wants to do

How would I approach the wickedness (as you say)? By....

5. I will hold him accountable to his actions by telling him how I feel about it and how wrong it is etc but I will not stomp over him and direspect who he as a person based on what he did

6. There are no rewards for taking a life to save one

Would I congradulate my son for doing such a horrible thing?

Of course not! That would just mean I can tell my son 5. and whatever he wants to do with that knowledge I would not hold him accoutable. He is an adult. He suffers the consequences for his actions through his karma. No outside external force or being, like myself, should interfer unless to save others or himself.

EDIT: Where is the logic in finding good in Just that is not defined by teaching someone what is right but killing others to teach it instead?

The first half

I try not to put Christian denominations down. He had a good point and I gave him my hat on it. I just used his point as a backdrop to the question I had of believing the good in something even though its connected to bad things: metaphor, for the good, or not.

How about an adult like, killed your own son? Do you want to see him punished?

Moreover, the wicked are never considered as children of God.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
How about an adult like, killed your own son? Do you want to see him punished?

Moreover, the wicked are never considered as children of God.

No. Thats barbaric. He suffers the consequence of his actions by law and by his own karma. He alone makes amends to himself and who he hurt (our family). I have no reason to see him punished when, even more so as my child, he is not inheritedly a bad person and NO person regardless should be killed to make retribution to society. Thats just so, wrong.

Id say they were children of god before they became wicked unless god didnt create them. If I had a son, he will always be my child no matter how wicked he is.

Unfortunately, god does not see it that way.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
"I will punish you for trying to be like Me, A&E" -- God
"I will punish humanity for trying to build a tower to heaven to be like Me" -- God


"Be like God" -- Jesus

Your attempted paraphrase hides the actual truth contained in the scripture:

Genesis 1:26-27
God: "I created you to be like me".

Genesis 3:5
Satan: "You aren't like God. He's lying to you. Rebel against God and only then will you be like Him."
(Effectively Satan is trying to make man like him, as the one who rebelled against God and was cast down from heaven)

Genesis 11:4
Man: "Let's work our way up to Heaven and set our own name up in Heaven as an idol, not acknowledging God."
(Man is at this point reflecting the desire of Satan to make himself a replacement for God, as believed to be represented in Isaiah 14:12).

Matthew 5:48
Jesus: "Be who you where created to be originally, like God, without rebellion towards Him."
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I would be more amenable to listening if the lie didn't continue to be spread that Satan is in that story. I worship the Truth. Those who don't understand what that is won't get far with me.
 

cambridge79

Active Member
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but just curious which error, inconsistency, anachronism or plagiarism is your favorite.

the fact that God should be the most wise being in the universe yet in the old testament is more moody than zeus
is the more compassionate and just being in the universe yet he commits and orders all kind of genocides in the whole old testament.
in the old testament he cares only for the jews, killing and cursing whoever is crossing their road, yet he let his son die ( by the hands of the jews themselves ) for all mankind.
so, basically i think the best contraddiction i like from the bible is god himself.
 
Top