Alleged Bible Errors

[Jason Gastrich]

Thanks Angel and God bless you!

Jason

[Rick]

Jason,

I borrowed these from another post. I know many of these are commonly used by atheists as a reason for their lack of belief. Please address as many as you care to.

Cerran Mar 15 2004, 06:51 PM

Group: Members

Posts: 58

Member No.: 2708

Joined: 13-March 04

Another group of reasons why I believe the bible isn't the word of God.

...and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... (Luke 3:23)

According to Morris (Many Infallible Proofs p. 62) it is Jewish custom to consider one's father-in-law as a father, which would explain Joseph's two fathers. I find this somewhat lacking, however, because we see that the lineage converges further up at King David, which would indicate that Joseph and Mary were related.

I've also heard that one of the lineages describes the line of Mary, while the other describes the line of Joseph. Strangely, though, they both end in Joseph.

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5) (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out...) (Acts 1:18)

One reconciliation of these passages is that he tried to hang himself, but was unsuccessful, so he jumped off a cliff that was on his property. (Or that he hanged himself near a cliff, and the rope broke.) But the first passage doesn't say that he tried to hang himself, and mentions nothing of his body bursting open. Likewise, the second passage says that he fell head first in a field, not down a cliff.

Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1) Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1)

Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:12) Do not repay any one evil for evil. (Romans 12:17, likewise Matthew 5:39)

I have heard the explanation that a person who is harmed should not harm another in return, but rather the community should serve the punishment. And the Romans commandment is for personal affairs, while Exodus is a community law. But the second passage makes no qualifications. I can think of another simple command: "...love your neighbor as yourself..." (Leviticus 19:18). Can this statement also be conditional?

... Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, ... (2 Samuel 21:19) .. Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, ... (1 Chronicles 20:5)

Morris says,

One possible solution to this problem would be to assume there were two giants named Goliath, one of whom was slain by David. The other was then slain by Elhanan, who also slew his brother. There were two Elhanans of Bethlehem (II Samuel 23:24), so why not two Goliaths of Gath? ... It has been argued very effectively by Old Testament scholars that the apparent discrepancy in this case with II Samuel 21:19 arose by a copyist's error in the latter. One other possibility, with some support in Jewish tradition, is that Elhanan was another name for David and Jair another name for Jesse. In any case, there is certainly no proof of a contradiction. (Morris Many Infallible Proofs pp. 225-226)

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46) When he received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (John 19:30)

The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, ... (1 Corinthians 2:15) Therefore judge nothing... (1 Corinthians 4:5)

Christian response: Finish the second quote "...before its appointed time." These two can be reconciled as, "The spiritual man judges all things, but not before their appointed time."

They were also the chief officials in charge of Solomon's projects -- 550 officials supervising the men who did the work. (1 Kings 9:23) They were also King Solomon's chief officials -- two hundred and fifty officials supervising the men. (2 Chronicles 8:10)

Factual Errors

A bat is not a bird. Note that this isn't just an arbitrary classification that the Western and European world has created. A bat is a bird as much as a Cocker Spaniel is a cat.

These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat (Leviticus 11:13-19)

You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Deuteronomy 14:11-17)

Rabbits do not chew their cud (bring up previously swallowed food to chew). They do eat their own dung, but I have heard that there is a Hebrew word for that which would have been used if that was the meaning.

The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; ... (Leviticus 11:6)

Insects, as part of their definition, have six legs. (Spiders are arachnids, not insects.)

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: ... Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshopper. (Leviticus 11:20-22)

Snakes don't eat dirt.

So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust..." (Genesis 3:14)

Camels have split hooves.

There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:4)

However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [1] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7)

The earth isn't stationary as once thought.

... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)

... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)

Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. (Joshua 10:12)

Note that the first reference to "world" may mean "the way things are", and that in the last reference "earth" may mean "land". In the context the writer discusses clouds, winds, waters, and mountains, which seem to support this view.

These passages were used by the Church to convict Galileo of heresy.

The earth is not flat, as once thought. It has no corners at all, and "ends of the earth" is not typically interpreted as from outer space. (Besides, what would be the ends? Why should the magnetic poles be "ends" as opposed to the axis of rotation?)

... he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, ... (Revelation 7:1)

Oh Lord, ... to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth... (Jeremiah 16:19)

... and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

The first quotation is rendered as "four corners" in the King James Version. I have heard that this is a mistranslation of the original Greek.

Thanks,

Rick

[Jason Gastrich]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your message.

While I'm sure your heart is in the right place, I didn't come here to answer long lists of copied and pasted statements. I have answers to all of those and did answer the first two in this message, though.

...and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... (Luke 3:23)

According to Morris (Many Infallible Proofs p. 62) it is Jewish custom to consider one's father-in-law as a father, which would explain Joseph's two fathers. I find this somewhat lacking, however, because we see that the lineage converges further up at King David, which would indicate that Joseph and Mary were related.

I've also heard that one of the lineages describes the line of Mary, while the other describes the line of Joseph. Strangely, though, they both end in Joseph.

In the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons. As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. - Adam Clarke

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5) (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out...) (Acts 1:18)

One reconciliation of these passages is that he tried to hang himself, but was unsuccessful, so he jumped off a cliff that was on his property. (Or that he hanged himself near a cliff, and the rope broke.) But the first passage doesn't say that he tried to hang himself, and mentions nothing of his body bursting open. Likewise, the second passage says that he fell head first in a field, not down a cliff.

You are making an argument from silence. We see a couple of omissions. Omissions are not necessarily errors and surely not errors in this case because both accounts harmonize.

God bless,

Jason

[Rick]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your message.

While I'm sure your heart is in the right place, I didn't come here to answer long lists of copied and pasted statements. I have answers to all of those and did answer the first two in this message, though.

...and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ... (Luke 3:23)

According to Morris (Many Infallible Proofs p. 62) it is Jewish custom to consider one's father-in-law as a father, which would explain Joseph's two fathers. I find this somewhat lacking, however, because we see that the lineage converges further up at King David, which would indicate that Joseph and Mary were related.

I've also heard that one of the lineages describes the line of Mary, while the other describes the line of Joseph. Strangely, though, they both end in Joseph.

In the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons. As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. - Adam Clarke

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5) (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out...) (Acts 1:18)

One reconciliation of these passages is that he tried to hang himself, but was unsuccessful, so he jumped off a cliff that was on his property. (Or that he hanged himself near a cliff, and the rope broke.) But the first passage doesn't say that he tried to hang himself, and mentions nothing of his body bursting open. Likewise, the second passage says that he fell head first in a field, not down a cliff.

You are making an argument from silence. We see a couple of omissions. Omissions are not necessarily errors and surely not errors in this case because both accounts harmonize.

God bless,

Jason

Well Jason,

I guess you will just have to wait on questions to arrive that you feel like answering. I personally dont doubt the inerrancy of God's word, But only posted the questions up since they were used by an atheist on these forums to give credibility to his beleifs. I thought maybe you could address them and provide a rebuttal to the claims. I guess they dont meet your criteria, as they are cut and pasted. But thanks anyway! And thanks for addressing the first two questions. Hopefully you will get some of the more appealing questions you feel like answering soon. From the thread, I gathered that no one was asking questions that you considered to be acceptable either. These were legitimate questions concerning subject matter that some consider to be inerrancy. Maybe you should clarify just which questions you will answer, and maybe include what format you would like them in as well. We sure dont need anything else to stand in the way of you being able to answer the questions that you so eagerly asked for us to present to you.

Rick

[salt and light]

The so called errors in the bible, well, wasn't God able to preserve his word in a infallible translation? I say He did,and it is in the KJV,and if the KJV isn't the one, the NIV certainly isn't the remedy,for it omits over 60,000 words,and the NKJV ignores the Textus Receptus over 1200 times.

[Douay]

I'll be a good sport.

Romans 10: 13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Matthew 7: 21 "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven:"

[Guest zhavoney]

xyz

[Guest LCPGUY]

SALT and LIGHT

You are absolutely correct. And it stands to reason. :t: It was the only translation, where the translators were not payed. and had to do their job at the threat of death.

Maybe a new thread on Bible translations should be started.

But until then, I like the NASB.

Bro John

PS Mods, are you listening?

[Guest LCPGUY]

Oh, what the heck, I'll just do it!

In controversial issues.

Let's not hijack this thread.

Bro John

[Guest Marc]

Jason . . .I know to have found an error in the bible:

1 Corinthians 14:34

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Surely women are allowed to speak aren't they? :x:

Only kidding Jason, I know the bible has no mistakes, ( just that Paul was wrong on this one . . . .or was he?)