Some More Major Biblical Gaffes

10:12 provides the whopper of whoppers though: Telling the sun to stand still to provide more daylight during the fight.

They didn't know it back then, but it is Earth that moves about the sun, and not the sun that so-called rises and sets. It was commonly believed that the sun went about the earth for a long time, and that time encompassed the biblical Old Testament time. Would God have not known that?

I hate to make fun of the Uncensored Truth Bible, but their ninety bible scholars didn't catch this in their seven years of making sure to get it right.

This particular verse is a prime example of the difference between the bible and science. When Fundamentalists say that the bible is God's error free word and it is to be believed completely, they buck what has been scientifically proven, and that they actually accept contrary to what the bible says. In the past, it was believed by men and religion that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun and stars revolved around it. It is men who wrote the bible for no real God would have made a mistake like that.

Here's another problem, one that shows that maybe two or more people wrote, or edited the Old Testament. It concerns which tribe has Jerusalem.

15:63 has Judah unable to extricate the Jebusites from Jerusalem. However, 18:28 says it's in the territory of Benjamin. Too further muddy the waters, the next book, Judges, in 1:8 says that Judah fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it and set fire to the city; then 1:21 says that Benjamin didn't eliminate all the Jebusites, and live there to "this day". Let's see if the Fundamentalists can wiggle out of this conundrum.

Chapter 4

From I Kings

Setting the stage for this next example of one of the other errors in the bible, let's look first at a couple of things in the book of I Samuel that shows that the god of Israel is not a kind, loving, and forgiving father as otherwise depicted that shows that men, and not any god, wrote the bible.

I Samuel, chapter 15 tells the story of Samuel the prophet telling Saul, the then king of Israel, to not only go fight Amalek, but not to spare anyone; not man, woman, infant and suckling, as well as all livestock.

Saul obeys, kills all, but doesn't kill the king, Agag. In verse 33, we're told that Samuel takes Saul to task for not obeying, and sparing Agag, then taking Agag and cutting him in pieces. This shows a maniacal god who is blood thirsty,

The next example, also in I Samuel, has David as king. Chapter 21:1, it says that there was a famine lasting three years. When David inquires of god for the reason, he is told that it is for Saul because when he was king, he had killed Gibeonites. David is then said to ask of the Gibeonites how they would like recompense.

They asked for seven of Saul's sons, which were promptly delivered, and they hung

A famine lasting three years and then seven sons of Saul which they hanged, and all of this long after the misdeed? This is a vengeful, bloody maniac that the writers have painted. I wonder why they had felt the need to portray their fictitious god in such a crazed and bloody way.

Well, that shows the character of the god they wished to have us see, and in keeping with that portrayal, we come now to I Kings.

11:11 starts with their god telling Solomon that because of his many perfidies over the years of his kingship that when he dies, the present kingdom will not pass to his son in its entirety, but that one son, Rehoboam, will be given one tribe for David's sake.

Then in verse 31, Jeroboam is ceremonially told that god had chosen him to be king over ten of the tribes from Solomon's kingdom. This, then, was to be what is to be called the Northern Kingdom, and told that Rehoboam would have one tribe. That's a total of eleven tribes.

But let's look at this a little closer. The twelve sons of Jacob are:

Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Benjamin, Zebulon, Issachar, Dan Gad, Asher, Napthali, Joseph, and Levi.

But the tribes are Judah, Benjamin, Reuben, Simeon, Zebulon, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Napthali, Mannaseh, and Ephraim.

Why the difference? Levi was set aside early on as a priestly tribe, and was to have no land per se, but served as priests to all the other tribes.

Joseph, for whatever reason, was represented by his two sons, Mannaseh and Ephraim. Thus drop Levi and Joseph, and add Mannaseh and Ephraim in their stead and you come up with the twelve tribes of Israel.

However, when you look at a map showing the lands apportioned to each of the twelve tribes, you find that Dan was apportioned two lands, the one far separate from the other, and Mannaseh separated into East and West Mannaseh. If that weren't odd enough, Simeon's parcel is the southern most one which some say is wholly encircled by the land of Judah.

Now according to three bibles: King James, Catholic, and the so-called Uncensored Truth bible, god is said in I Kings, 11:13, to have said that:

"...[I] will give one tribe to thy son [Rehoboam]...", King James version;

"...I will leave your son one tribe..." Catholic version;

"..I will let him be king of one tribe..." so-called Uncensored Truth bible version.

Frankly, I confess that finding out where it says that Benjamin was a part of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, was pretty much impossible, but several sites say that it soon aligned itself with Judah.

Well, if so, they went against the will of their god, as well as his promise to Jeroboam. Even so, I could find nothing that said Benjamin decided to alone itself with Judah. What some sites said was that some cities were cited as being in the sphere of the Southern Kingdom. It's all very nebulous.

What is not nebulous, is that the bible doesn't specify the tribes of the two kingdoms, but more, somewhat of a mystery, is that Simeon, which was located to the south of Judah, is not mentioned at all. They seem to have forgotten Simeon completely.

Now all of this is very strange, and as far as I can see, bad writing on the part of the authors. Sorry, I can't put any of this off on any god, he did say, when he left one tribe to Rehoboam, that it was for Jerusalem's sake, and which tribe Jerusalem belonged in...[see Joshua earlier for more confusion].

* * * *

I've pretty much covered some of the other books of the Old Testament, especially the important book of Daniel, so now it's on to the New Testament.

Testament

Chapter 5

m the gospels

The first writings of the New Testament are from Paul, his letters, totaling six or seven that are actually written by, at least as far as can be determined. The others are forgeries. Paul wrote beginning about 50 CE, the first letter to the Thessalonians. Notably, that letter contained his firm belief that Jesus's return in power was imminent (see 4:16-17), before Jesus' generation had passed away. This was said to have been expressed several times by Jesus himself.

That, obviously, never happened.

There is a second letter to the Thessalonians that is thought by many to be a forgery that waffles as to the time of Jesus' return. His return is tied to the prophecy of Daniel that the abomination that makes desolate would be in the temple,. Whatever that may have supposed to have been—most think it to be an idol of a pagan god.

Since the temple was destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans, that didn't happen either. Paul was said to have died, possibly doubting what he had said, possibly still believing Jesus would return as promised. Obviously, again, that didn't happen.

Which brings us to the gospels.

The gospels are not believed to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, thus all bibles that I have seen preface each gospel with the words: "According to".

Matthew is placed as the first gospel though again, most believe that it was written after Mark, the sparsest of all the gospels. The gospel accorded to Matthew being so much more both heart-warming and catchy, may have been honored as first for that reason. Mark, however, is thought to have been written either as the temple was destroyed, or just after it. Matthew is thought to have been written about 80 CE.

Who ever Matthew may have actually been, if he was indeed a disciple of Jesus, he would have had to of been at least eighty years old if indeed he was still alive. Mark's and Luke's is thought to have been written in about 80 AD, John's somewhere in the 90 to 100CE time span.

There are no original copies of any of the gospels, and have been known to have been edited, probably several times. They are thought to have been written to appeal to specific audiences.

We can readily find many errors in them, either from the original writing, or from editing. Again, I'll only be looking for obviously major errors that would be irrefutable so that even Fundamentalists can't say otherwise as they always seem to do. Let's start in Matthew, but skip around as may be needful.

I:I of Matthew starts off with a genealogy of Jesus' line. which can be compared to the genealogy in Luke, starting in 3:23. Obviously one is definitely wrong as the one says that has lineage is from David, then to Solomon, and the other says it's from David, then to a different son, Nathan. What is important also, is the comparison of the people Jesus is said to have descended from, the one list being much longer than the other. If is no wonder that many wouldn't notice this since one starts with Abraham and goes forward, and the other starts with Jesus and works backward.

There, already, is nothing inspired of these writings by any god. While those may not be classified as really major errors, they are none the less errors, and show that they are not reliable to tell us of any truth about a savior. Again, though, in Matthew, in 2:23 he falsely says that it was spoken prior the Jesus' birth that he would be called a Nazarene. A search in Strong's concordance of the King James bible, and a Catholic concordance failed tp prove this.

While both Matthew and Luke give fanciful accounts leading up to Jesus' birth, Luke says it was in the time when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Since Matthew said Herod the Great was alive, Cyrenius wasn't governor at the time. Hmm.

Maybe one of the biggest whoppers had to be these:

2:13-15 of Matthew says that While Herod was alive, Joseph had an angel apprar to him to warn him to flee to Egypt to escape Herod's murderous scheme to get rid of Jesus and his threat to Herod's kingship. When Herod was dead, Joseph was told to go to the land of Israel.

2:21-39 of Luke, however, says that Jesus was circumcised on or just after eight days, then after purification, Jesus, after some fanciful story embellishing, was said to return to Galilee to their home in Nazareth.

No Herod, no fear of Jesus being killed by Herod, and no run to Egypt. One, or both, were lying. There is no getting around it!

* * * *

Never mind the so-called miracles, both later put words in Jesus' mouth to the effect that he wouldn't taste of death till they say him returning in the coming of his kingdom.

16:28 of Matthew; and 24:27 also culminates Jesus' returning after much descriptive language, again, after the abomination of desolation occurs [in the temple according to Daniel in his eleventh chapter].

13:13-31 of Mark says much the same as Matthew.

21:32 of Luke (and much of the chapter before this verse) say much the same thing, but in his own words.

None of them came to pass. Why?

Maybe because the writers were having Jesus prophesy about what had already happened, minus the abomination of desolation, and Jesus not yet returning. Was this because they knew that their audiences couldn't go to any library and check out their stories? Who can say for sure, but it's all a fable proven by the fact that there are so many lies and falsehoods that no god could "inspire".

* * * *

Here it is just after Easter, 2017, and here are a couple of other dillies from scripture:

2:13 of John has Jesus fairly much beginning his mission by going to Jerusalem and overturning the money men.

11:15 of Mark, however, has Jesus doing the same thing, but near to the day of his arrest.

Now how can this disparate telling of the same tale be at such different times? Did god forget to make sure that he "inspired" both writers properly, he who they say created the Universe to work so synchronously and mysteriously maybe six or ten thousand years ago, or so some believe?

Okay, I had to rely on the Catholic bible for clarity on this next one, but even the Uncensored Truth bible has it just as clearly:

18:28 of John has Jesus taken to Pilate to be crucified before the Passover meal (and 19:16-17 of the same day has it happening).

14"16 of Mark has Jesus arrested after eating the Passover meal (The Last Supper too; beginning 14:17 and the Garden of Gethsemane) so that he had to be crucified the day after Passover.

So who got it right, or did they both err? Who knows, but that couldn't have been by inspiration from god, so it wasn't his word.

I'd read these passages on the crucifixion, and lately again, yet I missed this. In reading books that offer critical and textual research, I came across this in a book by Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (originally published, 1978, Harper One). It was easy not to catch this as there are so many differences between Mark and John, and there is so much to try to remember; it doesn't help that there are other gospels, and all have many differences.

By the say, I've often wondered how it is that these gospels report what is said in the Sanhedrin meetings, and what was said by Pilate in meeting with them, and with Jesus. Surely those meetings weren't open to the public for transparency's sake.

Epilogue

In his book, A Skeptics Guide to the Mind, Dr. Robert A. Burton (St. Martin's Press, 2013) immediately tells us: "And yet, we have no idea what a mind actually is. Despite 2,500 years of contemplation and the more recent phenomenal advances in basic neuroscience, the gap between what the brain does and what the mind experiences remains uncharted territory." Then further on, he remarks that: "...contrary to personal experience, there is no way to objectively determine the origin of a thought."

In another book I read recently (sorry, I can't remember which one), I came across this gem: Our most basic instinct is to survive. Our second most basic instinct is to reproduce. 0ur third most basic instinct is pleasure. I thought about this, and couldn't argue with it. All else of importance comes under one of these three basic instincts.

All of those items above being true, I thought that it was certain that after we became aware enough to really wonder about things, that we would in time wonder about how we got here. Born not knowing, it's no surprise that our minds had to make up reasons: why we live, and perhaps more importantly, why we die, and if we lived, what happens to us when we are no more. They must have been very frightened at times, yet not know why. Funny thing is that we still don't really know. We made things up, and as happens, things change, and so did all that was made up about us. One myth followed another even to today.

After many thousands of years of changes, a few of those beliefs have remained. One of them is a morphing of Judaism and Christianity, and that from sheer ignorance and the many poor and uneducated in systems in which they were told what to believe or else. That went on for nearly two thousand years. For a long time, only priests were allowed to read the bible, not that bibles were readily available, or that people knew how to read. Still...

For us, who inherited Christianity, it is a very powerfully inculcated belief system based, as I've shown, on a massive, and confusing set of so-called scriptures that are for most of us, infuriatingly inscrutable, defying us to make sense of it all in its voluminousness. Fortunately, the growth of the intelligence and knowledge of our technology and learning, it is now becoming clearer to some of us.

However, our populations have grown exponentially too, making for so many of those still caught up in the beliefs that the religious powers that be are certainly aware of, and work mightily to keep them locked into their ignorance of the sources of their so-called spirituality.

In spite of Creationists theory that we were made by some god, and probably only ten thousand years ago, there is no doubt that humans of one kind or another (see Neanderthal, Denisovan, and even Homo Erectus, and others) began to make up that a god, or gods, were responsible for our being. How could they not?

In the United States, and much of the western world, when one looks up at the night sky, it is not seen with the massive star-filled sky that's not seen now by most. When one really sees it without all the modern buildings and lights obfuscating our view of it, one can see its overwhelming vista that lets humans know just how insignificant they are in this wondrous cosmos.

in its June, 2011 issue, National Geographic highlighted what it called "The Birth of Religion, The World's First Temple." it is called Gobecki Tepe, located in modern day Turkey, and thought to be 11,600 years old, and built by hunter-gatherers pulling massive 16 ton stone blocks up a hill. It is still being excavated as far as I know.

Long before that temple, there had to be much wonder about who we are, yet we do know that we are. It's also easy to imagine that there had to be a priest, or priests, or priestesses.

In our not knowing, it had to be easy for those religious leaders to come up with what seemed like plausible ideas of deity, and thus gain much power from the others. Humans rather easily became prideful, and quickly, power hungry, and church leaders had to be at the forefront, that position becoming much desired.

We know about the gods of ancient Greece and Rome, and the rest of the burgeoning civilized world, including the Middle East, and soon even Canaanites, from whom the Israelites sprang. As gods were made up to explain "us", it was all kept hushed up as to just how we came about, or some such to pacify those who wondered enough.

These are all major errors in the bible, god's so-called inerrant word (error free, that is).

Many people, myself included, had, or have, a difficult time understanding the bible. That's understandable when you finally realize that no god wrote it, or inspired it' it was men wrote it, and most of the Old Testament was most likely written by the Jewish aristocrats who were taken to Babylon somewhere in the 580 BCE time frame.

I've shown some of the writings that could not have been written or inspired by any god. My other essays give many more examples of errors that no god could have made, or cause to be made.

We have, over almost two thousand years, been culturally made to believe in Christianity (as many of the Middle East and elsewhere have been made to believe in Islam, or Hinduism, etc.).

My other essays, as well as stories, give many more errors of the bible, yet these Fundamentalists and many Evangelicals try to tell us that their god can't abide any but a man and a woman marrying. No women marrying another woman, no man marrying another man, and, of course, no love to be shared between any of them. This, they say, is the decree of god in his inerrant, error free, bible.

They even had a law passed prohibiting those kinds of taboo marriages. In Iowa, when that state's supreme court told them that they couldn't pass a law like that, they voted the miscreant judges out of office and elected those that whey hoped saw things their way. And they're still at it nationwide.

They will never stop trying to make the rest of us toe their religious line. Only spreading the Truth of their Lies might stop them. But it's a difficult fight for our culture is an old one imported from Europe, and the indoctrinations were often horrible. Thank goodness that they can't burn anyone at the stake for religious reasons now, though some have openly expressed the wish that they could, but they say that ISIS (Islamic state) is killing anyone that is homosexual, or maybe even suspected of being homosexual.