Talk:Biblical contradictions

Creation Week

The Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 issue is probably better covered here: Creation Week.--Bob^{bing up} 15:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Actually we have found a couple of problems when going down this "biblical contradictions" route in the past:

• Translations. The existence of a contradiction may or not may depend on the translation you are using - or indeed if you are using the original manuscript and translating it yourself. This can spark off all sorts of complex debates.

One cannot attribute these differences to "lost in translation"-I can attest that at least those verses which come from the Hebrew texts are translated in both letter and spirit.--Greg

• How literal you wish to understand the paragraph to be. Frequently these contradictions are important to those who believe in full biblical literalism but irrelevant to those who take a more intellectual approach. Consequently we are left the the question, "A contradiction in whose eyes?"

In my opinion we should simply regard the bible as a myth and leave at that. Trying to take it apart at this level will simply invite problems.--Bob^{bing up} 15:46, 11 December 2008 (EST)

isn't part of the part though that fundies take it literally and call it infallible ("God said it, I believe it, that's all there is to it" as I read somewhere - possibly one of Karajou's userboxen)? This is why its mistakes and contractionsrichness and complexity need examining. Totnesmartin 17:49, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Numeric biblical contradictions should be merged here. ħuman 22:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Laundry lists considered harmful

I think writing out long lists of contradictions is counterproductive, since most of them are weak or subjective ("How can he be a god of war some of the time and a god of peace other times?!?1") After the Christian reads a few of those, they scoff and dismiss the entire list. There are entire books dedicated to refuting these contradictions. It's better to focus on the few numerical contradictions or blatant differences in accounts of specific important events, as these are clear factual errors and you have to jump through a lot of hoops to explain them away. Hmmph (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The biblical contradictions are in the Bible on purpose, so that you may read it more carefully and think about it with an open mind IMHO. --Jiri ^{— Unsigned, by: 130.233.217.167 / talk / contribs}

LOL. Yes, that would be the answer. Just like all those incremental fossils, god loves to fuck with our minds. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Jesus' Parental Grandfather - not a contradiction.

Although the account in Luke and in Matthew tell us of a different name, there is a clear answer as to why they differ. Luke shows Jesus' natural descent, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary(i.e. Heli was Mary's father). The Matthew scripture does not say 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "husband to Mary, of whom Jesus was born". Therefore, Joseph being the adoptive parent showed the legal heir in the male line of descendants from David and Solomon. RoryWatt (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of several excuses apologists have concocted to explain away the contradiction. What is your point, exactly? --Inquisitor (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

'excuses'? This is called reasoning and considering the context of statements. Context is clearly something a baboon like you cannot mentally grasp.

Jacob is the father of Jesus' father regarding the question asked. Heli, as stated above, is the father of Mary(Jesus' mother). The legality of Joseph being the father does not purely rest on the fact of whether he is the biological father does it? To state that as not true on your part would show your ignorance in full. So, the reasoning of the contradiction that Jesus being born of a virgin is somehow in opposition to a genealogy is accepted in nothing but stupidity. To label it as "pointless" only enhances the fact that little thought and research has been given into the concluding statements. Which is why the small section should be removed. RoryWatt (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the section, edit it and point out why you think it's not a contradiction, don't just wipe it. Thanos6 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You would prefer me to edit and it and state why it's not a contradiction in the main page?? I wiped it because of the evidence I provided to conclude that this is simply a matter of not knowing the context. I stated above why it is not a contradiction. Hence why it should be deleted and why I am doing so again right now. Unless what I have said is wrong, do not re-add the section. Thank you. RoryWatt (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that the Heli-is-the-maternal-grandfather hypothesis is one of a few possible explanations available why the Bible mentions 2 grandfathers through which Jesus is supposed to be related to David. It's not at all clear from the context in the passages that this explanation is the right one, though.

It's not like Jesus's genealogy is anything special in this regard, though; genealogies linking someone to an important person from the past show a strong tendency of being faulty. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Strong tendency of being faulty" - Please do not state your opinion as fact. Use examples in history and post them here of exactly where the 'fault' lies, because this is a subject where blind opinions are irrelevant, especially when involving scriptures.

The clarity of my explanation is backed up in Luke 3:23, where it says "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," and in Matthew 1:16 where the comma is used to emphasis that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born". This shows that both Matthew and Luke knew that Joseph was not actually Jesus' father, so it is in fact clear that this explanation is the correct one considering that context. RoryWatt (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"...where the comma is used to emphasis..." The comma is a fiction introduced by translators, not the basis for a valid argument. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, bit of a latecomer here. My 2¢: from my understanding of previous discussions I've had over the subject (with both Christian and Jewish peers), one of the objections to this hypothesis is that Mary is listed as cousin of Elizabeth in Luke 1:36, who in Luke 1:5 was listed as a descendant of Aaron, a Levite, rather than King David's tribe of Judah. That and Luke uses "son" to reference the relation between Heli and Joseph, rather than "son-in-law", as he uses in later passages. Noir LeSable (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Better title?

Isn't "Contradictions in the Bible" better from a SEO point of view?--ZooGuard (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 03:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove "Other examples"?

These "other examples" are pretty weak. "God was nice sometimes and mean other times!" isn't really a contradiction and posting laundry lists of these weak arguments isn't going to be a big challenge to anyone's beliefs. In fact, it makes it easier for them to dismiss the entire list. Focus on a few obvious contradicitons in factual events, not subjective qualities of people. The 2 deaths of Judas is a pretty good contradiction, and the 7 vs 2 animals is an ok one (the apologetics rebuttal is stupid, but logically possible), but the fate of the righteous or Jesus vs god are dumb. The more hoops apologists have to jump through to explain it away, the better. Hmmph (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't object to trimming it down a bit. As to the 1 > 1 proof, well, I find it vulnerable to silly theological handwaves (that start centuries-long feuds) rendering it mostly meaningless; War and Peace is also more or less a non-contradiction, and... my memory is getting shoddy so I may need to do some more research, but some pruning might help. Also who put the "other" section first? PacWalker 03:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Two things to do:

Merge in Problems_with_biblical_inerrancy#Textual_contradictions

Trim stupid ones

32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

All in. Anyone up for a trim? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Argh αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@OP I remember in my childhood asking my local Catholic priest during a confirmation lesson about the contradictory accounts of the death of Judas. He said Judas hanged himself and burst open when his corpse fell to the ground. Philosophyfootball (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that’s another example of the ridiculous contortionist Rube Goldberg scenarios that apologists dream up to attempt to reconcile obvious contradictions in the bible. The problem is that it is not only the exact matter of Judas’ death that are different in Matthew and Acts, but the entire scenario, including the use of the money and the origin of the name of the field.

Did Judas throw the money back at the priests who bought a field that was then named the field of blood due to being purchased with blood money while Judas hanged himself at some unknown place and time (possibly prior to the priest purchasing the field, given that this event is described subsequent to Judas’ suicide)? Or did Judas keep the money to himself, personally buying the field and then dying by falling and bursting open, leading to this macabre manner of death being the origin of the name field of blood?

It is clear that these two stories are quite different and contradictory, the only commonalities being Judas, his reward money, that he dies somehow and that there is a field said to be called the field of blood (but the name originating in widely different ways). ScepticWombat (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge in Creation Week?

Everything on that page except "The Sun-Day Paradox" and "Before Creation Week" could go to this page; "The Sun-Day Paradox" could go to Scientific errors in the Bible and "Before Creation Week" could eventually be merged into Evidence against a recent creation. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Or should we do the reverse: Move Creation-related stuff from this page to Creation Week and just link over to it? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh... I dunno. However while I'm here I'm removing a couple one sentence side-by-sides; they just kill readability and look pretty... odd. PacWalker 02:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Or I could redo them like you just did to Jaccob/Heli/etc. That might be wiser. PacWalker 02:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The real problem with the SBS's that you removed is that they didn't quote the Bible, but just asserted something. :/ FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

How [is it] now brown potatow? PacWalker 02:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Is better. Creation Week merge? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this merging stuff, but I feel like even if we leave a main article link over at Creation Week, at least a brief summary of the contradictions would be nice. That said you may wish wait upon a better-wikinformed opinion/opinions. PacWalker 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Resurrection accounts

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20150407014132/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rsposse/rescomptable.htm

Would be good to have a better version of the info in this table, since this event is the cornerstone of Christianity and all.

(And include Matthew's zombie apocalypse with tumbleweeds/crickets in the other 3 boxes) Hmmph (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Situations Where Satan is better than God

I was reading this article, go to the place where it says "Times when the Bible God is worse than Satan." —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 00:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Adam or Plants?

This was one of the most illogical arguments i have seen, plants came first and they were scattered in different areas of the globe, Adam was made and God wanted the best for him so Adam saw him make him a garden with all the plants crunched into one small area. Use common sense.--(ノ°Д°）ノʇsədɯəꓕ nɹnɯıꓤ 16:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Part 2

The animals came first but God made animals in front of Adam so he could see creation and so he didn't have to go look for the animals but could have an easier time naming them.--Ultimate Slime 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly a long way from being the biggest problem if you think the Earth is 10,000 years old and was created over 7 days.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Well just like how y'all have problems showing how the matter that started the Big Bang even came about or if it really happened, you can only assume it did by what you see. Same with life coming from non-life, we would have a better chance of a tornado making a functional 747 in a junkyard and make it fly than for life to come from non-life. And here is a question, why is it that there was water before oxygen as the theory states? you can't have water without oxygen atoms first being made.--Rimuru Tempest 18:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

1) No one is saying matter started the Big Bang, matter didn't exist. 2) ^{[citation needed]} 3) What is that one even about? Christopher (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Im talking about the speck that is always mentioned, no one tells us where it came from or how it started. It is not a deity so you can't say time doesn't apply to it.--King Tempest 18:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

But to be honest I'm never really impressed with "biblical contradictions" arguments. It's to much like those "Star Trek" nitpicking books. Any long work of fiction is probably going to have some inconsistencies. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Well unless you have proof exactly that it is a work of fiction you can't say much about it being fiction, just because it doesn't agree with how one thinks the world began does not mean it is fake.--Rimuru Tempest 18:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Why does that rule only apply to the Bible and not the Qur'an or the Discworld series? Christopher (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You believe that a book saying the earth is 10,000 years old is true? It's plainly absurd. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all there are errors in the link you sent bob, starlight proves nothing because people idiotically place earth creation with universe creation and even if God did he can speed light up if he wanted to. Fake rings form on trees depending on conditions and famines were common in biblical times, ice can make many layers if the area gets really cold (cue the removal of the perfect atmosphere) and you can see ice layers form really easy when you pour water over cold things like an ice-cream maker that was in the freezer, if the caps would have froze and waves kept on rocking back and forth it would create layers rather fast. Where did all the dirt come from to make several thousand feet of dirt to create all the layers in the geologic columns we see? Why are the areas where erosion happened all jagged? Shouldn't it have been smoothed over the hundreds of thousands of years? Most of the continents don't fit with the drift theory, unless you shrink some and change some of their shapes, and how does it prove they were all together? God could have put many of the same creatures in different area. Cant god create diamonds instantly to contain the nitrogen already? Impact crater? This could be caused during the flood when the fountains of the deep broke forth which would lead to a collapse in the surrounding area and cause a sink in the ground, not only that but the rock hurled into the air could cause them as well. About the rotation it proves nothing because in the perfect growing environment of the beginning coral would have grown to great size, even after the fall it would have, animals were bigger back then (chameleon the triceratops anyone?) so growth would have been immense. Radioactive decay has seemed to be questionable, if I cant tell the time that an event that occurred recently accurate then how could it be trusted to get a distant event right? Its like saying "I cant shoot this gun and hit the target at point blank range, but if you move it 2 miles away I can hit a bull's-eye." Trying to use the sun's sound waves wont do a thing, its like seeing a burning candle from a company you know and you say "the candles are 7 inches tall so that means it has been burning for a long time", but then a guy tells you "sorry sir but I cut the candle to 1 inch and then lit it." Recession of the moon, same applies to the sun as it does here, you go off the assumption that the moon came from the earth and started spinning around it and lost its closeness over time. Of course most people don't take the bible verse that says, Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. Everything is going to fall apart so he has to redo everything again but this time there will be no need for sun or moon.--Rimuru Tempest 22:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah! so you are some type of gap creationist? Is that right? Big space between the first two verses of Genesis? It's always best to understand where people are coming from.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I believe in a young earth, old universe. It does state in the bible there are other worlds out there, and the angels were around even before the creation of the earth started and it had to be a long enough period for satan to grow envious of Jesus (which took a while before he felt it) and stir up controversy and then to become banished to earth before God even started its creation.--King Rimuru 16:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you believe that. My question is whether you reach that conclusion by shoehorning an enormous period of time between the first two verses of Genesis.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I look at all of the bible, you cant restrict it to 2 chapters in the bible and the view point changes between the 2 chapters. You also have to take into consideration the period where the bible mentions satan aka Lucifer and about the morning stars (angels) sang, the 1/3 of the stars (angels) cast to earth which happened before the earth even had its first day (because it was only a blob of water without form and it was void), the moment when time began for us would have been the start of Genesis (The beginning) but the creation of the universe and angels and the fall of satan would not have been mentioned as it would be considered the prequel to the beginning. It's like not talking about the life of your parents but starting with your birth.--Řïmũŗû Ţèmpéŝţ 18:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, So you're not a Gap Creationist then. So how old do you think the present version of the earth is? Or to put it another way - how long since Adam and Eve had the chat with the talking snake?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I would put it around a minimum of 6k and max 10k as for tree rings showing growth God wouldn't have had just sprouts they would have had to have been mature and if man lived to be 900 it wouldn't be a surprise if the trees would have kept growing after Adam died (since trees have always lived longer than us).--King Rimuru 20:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

And where do you stand on the question of the Earth being flat, a global flood, and the Earth (or the sun) being the center of the universe? --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Look at my edit on the flat earth and talk page add on to see what I think.--Ultimate Slime 00:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just answer the question? Or al teast link to the thing you are talking about. But OK.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So I've looked at it and I can't see the relevance to a global flood or geocentrism. What did I miss?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

More like why they do not answer why Antarctica gets 24 hours of sunlight in its summer (and common people who live there verify it too) without saying "well they are all liars, there is no 24 hour sun in Antarctica", they haven't gone there themselves and they don't ask the people who live and moved there (and they say it does get 24 hours of sun in December) so they only make themselves out as fools for saying that it doesn't.--Rimuru Tempest 16:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are telling me this. I am just curious to find out how far your beliefs depart from the standard scientific consensus. As far as I can tell you believe in an old universe; but a young earth so I'm guessing you reject the scientific consensus on evolution; you believe the Earth is sphere (more or less). So I'm curious to find out where you stand or geocentrism and a global flood. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, been sick. Geocentrism I don't believe in, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out, but in regards to the global flood many points have been missed in several of the articles which I can point out, like the weird object on top of Mount Ararat (but if you try to go there you will be shot by the locals). For now I have a few things to catch up on due to being sick.--Rimuru Tempest 18:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

All God's children

In Job God has discussions with his sons (and passes the time of day with Satan who has been a flaneur; but Jesus is his only begotten son.

Can one presume (a) certain elements of earlier God-narratives have been retained in Job (and the whole Bible and associated texts are a compendium of narratives and texts of various kinds, some of which have been rewritten for partial consistency, or (b) the Job book sons are goddess begotten and Jesus is the only human female begotten son, or (c) some other explanation? (I go for (a) as the most logical.) Anna Livia (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The general historical consensus is that Judaism developed from earlier henotheistic tribal religions of Semitic speaking people. While YHWH or El was the chief tribal god of the earliest "Jews", there was acknowledgement that other tribes had their own chief deities (Baal would be an example), El just happened to be the most powerful. Eventually, Judaism transitioned into a monotheistic religion, and in order to subjugate these other deities to El, stories and myths would have been developed to place these NOT-gods into Jewish cosmology. Over centuries, traces of these incorporations would have found there way into the canonical Jewish texts, and then subsequently into the Bible. That being said, i'm not familiar enough with the text in Job to speak directly to that case, but these potential additional offspring of God may represent that henotheistic past of Judaism. I've also glossed over significant elements in the Jewish transition from henotheism to monotheism. Petey Plane (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

See 'second paragraph' [1] (and Satan #could be one of God's sons# if one wishes to so read the text).

Is my option (a) a reasonable interpretation of the Bible? Anna Livia (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been meaning to bring this up

To me, there have been heavy mistranslations to where there is so many contradictions. Or parts of the bible had original parts taken out; or unpublished parts got destroyed and new versions were written on the spot. The way the whole thing is written, it is an unfinished story. It would have to be. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Women allowed to prophesy, or not?

I find fault in this section as the person in question who originally wrote it obviously did not get what was being spoken. First of all, in Corinth prostitutes would have their hair uncovered often, so for those who are confused why they need head-coverings at the time, there is your answer. Secondly, praying and prophesying are in no way the same thing as preaching a sermon in a church. If you can't tell the difference between the two then please read again or people will think you irrational.Rimuru Tempest 02:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Proverbs

There are various contradictions in this collection of advice: Book of Proverbs discusses some. --Gospatric (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Debunked at BibleStrength

The entire list has been thoroughly debunked at BibleStrength.com. Let me know if there are any further contentions or concerns.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call it debunking (let alone thorough), but rather the usual, bog standard apologetic “explaining away” contortionist arguments of why any contradiction isn’t really a contradiction after all if you just squint and look at it just the right way (and start by excluding “contradiction” or “error” as a valid explanation, of course...).

It includes the old chestnut of the Jesus’ genealogy contradiction being due to a mother’s/father’s side distinction, despite this not being mentioned anywhere in the actual text. It also appeals to such “explanations” as the Wiseman hypothesis (called the ”tablet theory”), which is basically just literalist apologetics dressed up in academic lingo to look like textual criticism, whereas the documentary hypothesis is not merely ”a competing theory” (as claimed by BibleStrength), but by far the prevalent textual model, accepted widely and not just by apologists.

Indeed, it would be interesting to see if BibleStrength could find examples of any non apologetic scholars who support the Wiseman hypothesis, because it’s quite telling that all the sources on it on the site is to apologetic sources, such as the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society aka JETS, Bible and Spade, which is an apologetic pseudojournal frequented by such “luminaries” as Bryant G. Wood, or simply apologetic webs(h)ites.

That said, if anyone has the time and patience to make an RW rebuttal in the same side-by-side format as an illustrative example of “apologetics in action”, I think it might be worth including in our article. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A basic reading of the initial chapters of Matthew and Luke is sufficient to show that one is written from Joseph's point of view and the other from Mary's.

If you think that the Documentary Hypothesis is widely-accepted, then you have more prominent websites to convince than mine, particularly Wikipedia, whose lede states "[A version of the documentary hypothesis, frequently identified with the German scholar Julius Wellhausen, was almost universally accepted for most of the 20th century, but the consensus has now collapsed.[6] This was triggered in large part by the influential publications of John Van Seters, Hans Heinrich Schmid, and Rolf Rendtorff in the mid-1970s.[7] These "revisionist" authors ultimately convinced the vast majority of scholars to date J no earlier than the time of the Babylonian captivity (597–539 BCE),[8] and to reject the existence of a substantial E source.[9] They also called into question the nature and extent of the three other sources. Van Seters, Schmid, and Rendtorff shared many of the same criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, but were not in complete agreement about what paradigm ought to replace it."[2]

The Tablet Theory is based on several lines of reasoning:

1. The Hebrew word Towl@dah meaning 'generations' or 'genealogy' consistently initiates each ancestor's account throughout the book of Genesis, clearly demarcating different accounts,
2. the same style as that in Genesis is found in ancient Mesopotamian genealogical tablets where a narrative accompanies a genealogy, and
3. the remarkable chiastic structure seen throughout Genesis, particularly in the account of the Flood, disproves any notion of multiple authors.[3] The remarkable chiastic nature of Genesis is likely the primary reason that consensus for the Documentary Hypothesis has recently collapsed.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually... A basic reading of Mathew and Luke leads a reader to understand that the stories are told from the perspective of the titular characters in question, as retold by Paul, as told by the off-screen narrator. Personally I don't get why you just don't admit that the people who compiled the bible were crappy proofreaders... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The Dead Sea Scrolls have definitively proven that the Old Testament was accurately preserved for over 2,000 years, rather than like a game of telephone as critics have claimed. The Bible is backed, time and again, by archaeological evidence.Psalms 12:6: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." The Bible continues to withstand two thousand years of intense textual criticism, and closer scrutiny only supports the accuracy of its accounts. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You know it would help your cause if you didn't keep linking to ASoK 2.0, just saying. "The Bible continues to withstand two thousand years of intense textual criticism, and closer scrutiny only supports the accuracy of its accounts." Ah, so your god is a psychopath, gotcha. See? I can play this game too, it just helps that I have a better reading comprehension. (Also, from a strict literary analysis, the bible is kinda poorly written, edited, and proof-read. It wouldn't even make it through a publisher these days.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, the wiki you cite is further invalidated since the main editor of said wiki, is yourself. You're citing your own works by proxy (and not even a good proxy for that matter), meaning all your citations amount to nothing more than "because I said so." ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is Very Bad if your citations amount to yourself. Creates circular argument. At least you admit in your userpage that you made that wiki. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Which citations are you referring to? Aside from simply mentioning where the RationalWiki list is debunked, I fail to see where else I cited BibleStrength here. It looks to me like you are attacking a strawman.

I also fail to see how evidence is invalidated just because the person mentioning it produced it. What kind of logical reasoning is that? By that logic, the work of any scientist cannot be trusted if, when discussing a subject, they refer to their own research papers. That's an absurd and nonsensical standard which does not exist in academia. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This is more you plugging a book during a debate. I honestly don't consider you on the same level of academia, partly because of your stated views, and also partly because like the senior editors at CP, you seem to have trouble with even Wikipedia's standards. So, like @ScepticWombat I see bog standard apologetics (read excuses) that I've seen countless times before and that didn't stand up to scrutiny the first time around, with the only notable bit being the fact that your wiki's article RW is so narrowly focused that it might as well not exist for all the information it provides. If I was still a Christian I would reject your site purely on the grounds of quality. With all that said and done, no, your essay refutes nothing. NEXT! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to add that you still haven't addressed my original point, i.e. the POV of the stories you originally mentioned. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

And for one so keen on relying on Wikipedia’s views on OT origin hypotheses, allow me to quote what That Other Wiki says about the “tablet theory” (sic! It’s a hypothesis at best!):

”[...] the hypothesis received some support from R. K. Harrison (1969) but otherwise remained without acceptance in scholarly circles.“

Given that the late Harrison’s view is not only 50 years old, but that he also just happened to be an evangelical apologist that’s a pretty scathing characterisation. So, Jzyehoshua rejects a hypothesis/theory that has gone from being almost universally accepted to merely widely accepted, with the main divisions being the exact times of composition of the various parts, in favour of a hypothesis that is not and seems never to have been accepted by anyone outside of the literalist/inerrantist sections of apologetics. Way to go for shooting yourself in the foot... ScepticWombat (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The literalist/inerrantist viewpoint is the predominant view in America.[4] If all literalists/inerrantists accept the Tablet Theory, that would be 38-47% of the U.S. population; 40% as of the last polling. As for the UK, 22% believe in either Creationism or Intelligent Design.[5] To present form criticism views as having previously been "almost universally accepted" is overstating things by a long shot, given that over 70% of Americans claim to be Christians, and at least 40% believe life on Earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago. Furthermore, the Wikipedia page is incorrect when it states that the Tablet Theory has not received recent support from academia. Duane Garrett of ABR, as mentioned, has espoused the Tablet Theory.[6] Dr. Clifford Wilson and Carl Wieland have also recently expressed support for the theory.[7] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A) Argumentum ad populum, B) No True Scotsman, C) argument by assertion backed up by... more apologists... I mean, both of the sites you linked have statements of faith for fuck's sake!! Your credibility further crumbles... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Great move, Jzyehoshua. You have simply repeated that inerrantists/literalists believe that the bible is indeed inerrant/should be read literally and that one scholar at a Baptist seminary believe in the tablet hypothesis. All of which is not only irrelevant (for the reasons given by GrammarCommie), but entirely beside the point, given that my criticism was about the marginality of the tablet hypothesis within bible scholarship (no, I didn’t write that explicitly, but I thought it would be damn obvious from the context). That lots of pious US Joe Blow families happen to believe in something is absolutely irrelevant. That a large slice of the US populace rejects such scientific findings as evolution or anthropogenic climate change doesn’t invalidate them.

So, do you have anything to suggest that the tablet hypothesis is any more than a fringe idea within academia that is peddled by inerrantist/literalist apologists, some of whom happen to be bible scholars as well? Can you find any scholars who do not already hold to inerrantist/literalist creeds who support the tablet hypothesis? ScepticWombat (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

To put into perspective why simply citing that "oh, but a significant amount of Americans believe in it", 1/4 of Americans don't believe the Earth goes around the sun, half believe antibiotics are effective against viruses, 40% believed that lasers work by focusing sound waves, and almost half didn't answer correctly that electrons are smaller than atoms (to be fair the only question I believe wasn't framed properly was the one that said "the universe began with an explosion" which isn't true as the Big Bang refers to a period of expansion a little after the very beginning). And when it comes to the Bible, knowledge of it also isn't all that impressive, with It's just to show you how poorly educated the general populace is, making your argument especially flimsy. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You committed the Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy to begin with by arguing that the Documentary Hypothesis "has gone from being almost universally accepted to merely widely accepted." I am simply pointing out you are wrong in your assertion about its popularity. Also, you are the one using the No True Scotsman fallacy by arguing that academic sources can't have statements of faith, despite the fact that Isaac Newton wrote analyses on the books of Daniel and Revelation, Matthew Maury discovered ocean currents on the basis of Psalms 8:8, William Buckland used geology to support the Biblical Flood, and Louis Pasteur used microbiology to combat spontaneous generation in defense of Theism. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that many of the most reputable and distinguished universities began as Christian seminaries intended to instruct pastors, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, College of William and Mary, St. John's College, University of Edinburgh, University of St. Andrews, Florida State University, Southern Illinois University, Louisiana State University, etc. To disqualify academic sources because they have had statements of faith would mean disqualifying the most prestigious universities on the planet, along with every scientist to have graduated from or worked at them. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

As to the first comment, no I did not, though It should be noted that acceptance of a theory in academia generally involves a bit more than a popularity contest. For example, evolutionary biology is held as the current model to explain the phenomena of evolution, rather than other competing theories such as Lamarckism, which failed to stand up scrutiny. Or how the current model of physics explains the phenomena of gravity, among other things far better than previous theories.

As to the second point, so what? So what if all of those universities started out as seminaries? That's not what they are now.

Moving on to the last point, because I can't believe you are that fucking stupid and obtuse, "To disqualify academic sources because they have had statements of faith would mean disqualifying the most prestigious universities on the planet, along with every scientist to have graduated from or worked at them." Ok... We'll take this bit by bit.. Firstly, any source that has a statement of faith is by definition more interested in preserving an existing narrative than searching for truth or knowledge. This is as true for biblical literalists as it is for libertarian think tanks, or anarchist social clubs, or communist forums. It is no different than a racist saying "I will only accept your arguments if they line up with my pre-concluded belief that the white race is superior to all or races." Or a flat earther saying "I will only accept your arguments if they line up with my pre-determined conclusion that the earth is flat." The primary fallacy involved is called ad hoc reasoning, but there is a more common term for the behavior, denial. As such, any source displaying the level of blatant childish stupidity should be discarded. And to preempt your attempt to turn that around, no, that does not necessarily apply to scientific sources, per se. I do not believe your extraordinary claims, so you must convince me that they are true, preferably with undeniable evidence (Miracles on demand that can be studied over a long period of time would be acceptable for myself), before I can accept them. Basically, You still have yet to grasp the basics of evidence, instead relying heavily on asserting that you are correct by default and hitting everyone over the head with echo chambers rather than being able to walk them through the logic and being able to recognize and accept criticism of your arguments.

In summery bog standard apologetics, which in all honesty is actually going below average at this point. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Sigh, are you really this dense, Jzyehoshua? Or are you simply being obtuse? That a lot of universities can trace their history to being educational institutions devoted to cranking out priests (as well as lawyers and doctors, the oldest faculties tending to be theology, law and medicine) is obviously irrelevant to their current status, as opposed to the kind of fundie school that persists in ring fencing its academia with a statement of faith that includes such fundamentally (pun intended) barriers to enquiry as literalism/inerrantism. Such a priori creeds are incompatible with the honest pursuit of knowledge, as inerrantism/literalism is both scientifically and historically illiterate. I use this strong term due to the attempt of inerrantism/literalism to insert methodological special pleading exemptions when it comes to the bible, treating any information from this particular text as something that cannot be either questioned or invalidated by rational enquiry. This short circuits any attempt at scientific, historical or any other kind of rational, academic study, which is why such terms as “creation science” is an oxymoron.

I have already pointed out that the context of the widespread acceptance of the documentary hypothesis (and the accompanying marginality of the tablet hypothesis) should obviously be understood as scholarly consensus (a context I thought should have been obvious from the get go). So when you claim that you were simply answering one argumentum ad populum with another, you’re once again being either dense (unable to read my previous comment) or deliberately obtuse (simply ignoring it). And before you start claiming that it’s unfair to exclude scholars at fundie schools when gauging the scholarly consensus, I’ll once again refer to the paragraph above: These institutions have de facto left the area of genuine academia by setting up their own rules that exempt their preferred holy texts from actual academic scrutiny.

However, I have to congratulate you, Jzyehoshua, for demonstrating the earlier criticism of relying on bog standard apologetics by resorting to the classic “X famous scientist was also a devout Christian”. It’s still not an argument for anything. Newton’s beliefs in Christianity (which were far from the kind of orthodoxy espoused by evangelical fundie schools, btw) are not validated by his status as a scientist any more than are his ideas about alchemy. This is the kind of silly, old hat “Fundie Apologetics 101” that made several of the editors in this thread shrug our shoulders at the original (sic!) defence of biblical inerrancy and attempts at explaining away various biblical contradictions: We’ve already seen these arguments before and they aren’t convincing to anyone not already within the circle of believers. So, unless you can some up with something substantial, e.g. actual academic support for the tablet hypothesis (i.e. from an actual university or its equivalent, not from fundie schools or apologists that have decided the issue a priori through statements of faith), I think we can pretty much wrap this up. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bible: the most mistranslated piece of garbage ever

Even nowadays when foreign films and books have been mistranslated. Now take a book written in a rarely spoken language over a thousand years ago and translated into hundreds of different languages over a long period of time. Plus multiple different authors to boot. There would be lack of coordination among them. No wonder that the Bible makes zero sense! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

More than a thousand years ago. Anna Livia (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Apocrypha

Should these be included (as tending to add inconsistency)Anna Livia (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Jehoiachin

... was more likely to be 18 than 8 to have the capacity to do evil in the eyes of the Lord (and have the capacity to understand what he was doing). Anna Livia (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)