The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories (page 3)

The Atheist’s Book
of
Bible Stories

What people are saying about The Atheist’s Book of Bible Stories:

“The type face is spectacular; the paper’s creamy texture tantalizes the reader; and the margins are positively luxurious.” - The printer

“I don’t know what went wrong, he was always such a good boy...”
- The author’s mother

“This is the most demonic thing since ‘Teletubbies’, possibly even ‘The Smurfs’.”
- Jerry Falwell

“ ...“ - The Author’s Jehovah’s Witness friends who are no longer allowed to talk to him

“The author is going to burn in hell where his flesh will be seared from his bones and he will be endlessly tormented in excruciating pain day and night forever and ever.” - Mother Theresa

“Stop sending us manuscripts.” - The New York Times
Preface

I inhabit a kind of twilight zone.

I grew up in a fundamentalist religion that many people are familiar with from their door-to-door recruitment techniques. As a Jehovah’s Witness, I was taught that every word in the Bible is true. This included everything from the creation account to the flood story. If the Bible said that donkeys and snakes talked, the dead came back to life, and plants and animals came into existence before the sun, well by God, then it must have happened.

Living in this environment requires considerable effort. You see, there is an entire universe of evidence that refutes these claims. It is a little like living in a dark room, when bright sunshine is beaming down on the outside. The only way to keep up the pretense is to actively stamp out all places where light might sneak in.

And stamping is something that we were very good at. For example, when I was growing up, my religion expressly forbid education beyond high school. Outside reading material was regarded with suspicion, and anything critical of the organization was seized upon as Satanic, evil material that was filled with nothing but lies and could lead to shipwreck of your faith, and possibly even demon possession. Satan sat under every rock, trying to make our cars break down or our children sick, so that we would not get to the Kingdom Hall. We were instructed in techniques for preventing negative thoughts. We were kept busy with mountains of reinforcing literature, and plenty of busy work to keep us out of trouble. We even developed our own peculiar jargon. Fear and guilt were stuffed into every crack, to prevent the light from seeping through.

So, for many years I lived in this dark room, until one day, a rather weak beam of light struck me right in the head. I blinked at it, but I was told that it didn’t exist, so, I shook it off and went about with my life. But this simple fact would not let me rest. Eventually, I took up researching my religion, science, and even the Bible itself.

Today, although I am a jolly atheist, I still cannot bask in the sunlight. My friends and relatives are still inside, so I must clam up whenever one of these beams of light shows itself.

Well, I think I’ve worked this analogy to death. Now, here’s why I wrote this book.

As I researched the Bible, I began to notice various contradictions, impossibilities, scientific errors, and moral paradoxes. I began to write these down into a concise index, thinking that one day I might publish a definitive index of Bible errors. It didn’t take me long to realize that this project was massive. It has been estimated that the Bible contains around 2,500 errors. Besides being too huge a job for an essentially lazy person, I discovered that it had already been done.

There seemed to be nothing left for me to do but poke some fun at a few of the lighter Biblical problems. My task for several years, has been to compile stories from the Bible that may be considered humorous, thought provoking, or maybe even inspirational in their own blasphemous sort of way.

Many times, the Bible will tell a story that is either impossible, or so improbable that it could not be considered credible. When this happens, the devout believer alters the interpretation so that incorrect statements are either overlooked or considered symbolic. For example, Jesus said that his audience would not pass away before he returned. Yet, two thousand years later, there is still no sign of him. Therefore, he must have meant something else. As science progresses, more and more of the Bible is deemed to have been symbolic.

When writing this book, I have worked under two assumptions.

First of all, I have assumed that the almighty of the universe is capable of preserving his book accurately. Any Bible that I pick up should be good enough. I will not study Hebrew or Greek in efforts to excuse the Bible of obvious errors. I will not compare translations, until I find one that translates around a mistake. During my life, I have been told stories of how medieval monks painstakingly copied and counted every letter in their manuscripts, making sure that no transcription errors crept into the work. So, I don’t want to hear complaints about the translation that I am using. If God can’t see to it that his Bible is accurately available to all persons, then he is not who he claims to be. In most cases, I use the Revised Standard Version, for no other reason than that it is readily available on line.

My second assumption is that the Bible says what it means. If it says that one man is the son of another man, then that is what it means. It doesn’t mean that the younger man is the grandson, the descendent, or the unrelated successor. At times, the Bible will speak symbolically; however, if it is not apparent from the context that this is the case, then I take it literally.

So, here I present a compilation of Bible stories and events, told exactly the way that the Bible tells them, without any embellishment or excuses. I highlight the things that may be overlooked, and at times add a little extra level of research and calculation, just so that the Bible will not get away with anything.

Contrary to common belief, atheists are not dark, brooding souls who have been traumatized by life or religion in some way, and therefore bitterly deny God. They are not temporarily deluding themselves, only to jump back into Jesus’ lap during a crisis.

Generally speaking, atheists are well-adjusted, intelligent people who are much like everybody else. We just can’t find any reason to believe that God exists. And, just like everybody else, we also like to have our notions reaffirmed from time to time. So, finally, there is a little chicken soup for the atheist soul (or whatever it is that we atheists have instead of a soul).

I hope that you will have as much fun reading it as I had writing it.

RAISING CAIN 12
THE NUMBERS OF THE BOOK 17
KILL ‘EM AGAIN GOD, THE OLD FASHIONED WAY 26
DEATH, AND OTHER MINOR AILMENTS 30
THE WORLD’S WORST JOBS 33
THOSE REMARKABLE WOMEN 36
THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY 41
RIGHTEOUSNESS 46
THE HARD WAY TO START A FIRE 53
THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES 57
THE FLOOD 61
DAVID AND THE CENSUS 65
BIBLE JUSTICE 69
Of Numbers, Poop, and Other Things 74
The Power of Prayer 83
DANNY BOY 85
Souls and Money 90
ORIGINAL SIN 95
PASCAL GOT IT WRONG 98
HOW TO BE A BIBLICAL APOLOGIST 100
IN THE BEGINNING

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

Every good story begins at the beginning, and this one is no exception. What better place to start a book about the Bible, than with the Bible’s opening sentence?

Now, as you might have guessed by the title of this book, the Bible and I part ways fairly quickly - to be exact, somewhere between the third and fourth words of the Bible’s opening verse.

To begin, the Bible opens with the phrase “in the beginning”. I am in total agreement with this. This is one of the two most popular theories on the subject (either the universe had a beginning or it didn’t), and it happens to be the one that both I and the Bible favor. Up to this point, I am a big fan of the Bible.

However, it is with the fourth word of the Bible that I take exception, and from that point on, my viewpoint grows ever more distant. But, after all, what kind of an atheist would I be, if I granted God even a toehold in this story? In fact, it is my objection to the concept of God that spawned the entire thesis of this book. If God exists and he has authored a book, then it should be a pretty good one. There should be no contradictions, errors, or logical flaws; it should be clear, easy to read, consistent, and accessable; and, it goes without saying that it should be morally irreprehensible.

Unfortunately, the book that is purported to be God’s official communication with humans contains all of these flaws, in abundance. And these flaws are in evidence in the opening scene, probably more than any other.

As the Biblical curtain draws open, the scene shows nothing - no physical universe and no heaven. The first article of business is to get this empty space filled. So, God creates these two things. He then goes on to populate the universe with living things, including plants, animals, and humans.

Knowing God, he naturally has to do things the hard way. Consider the order of creation:
Day 1: created light
Day 2: created the sky and separate water above and below the sky “firmament”
Day 3: land and sea separated, plants and trees created
Day 4: created the sun, moon, and stars, and installed them in the firmament
Day 5: created aquatic animals and birds
Day 6: created land animals and humans
Day 7: day off

That was quite a week. In early times, the Bible was taken at it’s word, meaning that all of this took place in seven literal days. Over time, scientifically astute humans began to realize that not only was this not possible, but there was ample evidence that life and other creations were far older than allowed by the Bible.

So, to fix this problem, enterprising Christians reinterpreted the word “Day” to mean a longer period of time - perhaps a thousand years, or maybe even seven thousand years. Others came to realize that even this interpretation didn’t work, so “Day” began to mean an era or epoch. You will notice throughout the Bible, that whenever it makes a statement that is either impossible or ridiculous, the statement becomes “symbolic”. Clearly, that technique becomes necessary very early in the book. It continues to be essential right up to the last chapter of Revelation.

Now, take a look at the order of creation. Notice that the first thing that God created was light. That was a good idea. Unfortunately, he forgot to create the main light source for the earth - the sun. I assume he used giant heat lamps to make up for the oversight. Also notice that he made plants before he made the sun - mostly frozen vegetables, I suspect.

The wording of this portion of the Bible is also rather odd. God consistently calls the sky a “firmament”. This is a strange choice of words. I can’t think of anything distinctly less “firm” than the sky. He then considerately arranges the sun, moon, and stars in the sky in such a position that they can be the most useful to humans.

Clearly, the Bible writer had an earth-centric view of the universe, and did not fully understand the role of the sun in providing heat, light, and energy. Perhaps God should have spent less time gluing up stars, and more time destroying evidence. He left a lot of fossils and geological evidence that contradicts his story.

Overall, the creation account is riddled with errors that force the reader to relegate this entire chapter to the myth bin. In fact, this chapter is such an easy target, that I think I will skip the rest of it entirely, and move to the next Bible chapter, where we can have a little more fun.

Adam and Eve

The story of Adam and Eve is one of the most enjoyable in the Bible. It is colorful and captures the imagination. It also addresses numerous classical literary themes. But, it also contains some humorous errors. Let’s begin with a quick review of the story.

Genesis chapter two begins by retelling the creation story. But, this time, it’s different. The order of creation is changed, and God appears to be more human-like. In the first chapter, God is basically a magician - waving his wand, and poof! Things come into existance. In the second chapter, he is more of a handiman. He plants a garden, enjoys walking in it, assembles a human out of spare parts, and converses with his creatures. He is also a little bit of a stinker. In addition to planting a garden, he also plants a trap. Clearly, this chapter was written by a different person from a different time period.

The action begins with the creation of Adam. God assigns him the task of naming the animals. Then he realizes that he has made an oversight. He has created males and females of all of the animals, but he has forgotten to make a female human.

Now, up to this point, God has miraculously willed the universe into existance. Yet, when it comes to creating one more thing, a female human, he finds it necessary to look for parts. Fortunately, he placed a superfluous rib in Adam. So, he anesthetises the man, removes the spare rib, and builds himself a chick - Eve.

Adam and Eve have a good time, frolicking naked in the garden (innocently, of course). They have no concept of right or wrong. They do not realize they are naked. And, apparently, they don’t have sex until much later.

Everything is going just fine, until God sets a trap. God gives them every tree of the garden for food. But, he forbids them to eat the fruit of one of the trees. He says that “in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (Gen 2:17) Remember these words.

Now, you have to wonder about the mentality of a being that would do something like this. Adam and Eve are young and innocent. God then entices them with a succulent tree that promises to give them knowledge. Then he forbids them from eating it, under penalty of death. Why would anyone create beautiful and perfect humans, and then plant a trap for the purpose of punishing and killing them? This is like placing a bear trap in a playground, and covering it with toys. Anyway, Adam and Eve are so innocent that they don’t even bother with the tree.

OK, the story up to this point is wild enough. I’m having trouble believing this as it is. So, what does the author now do? That’s right, bring on the talking snake. But not just any snake. Not a smart ass snake, for comic relief, or even a straightman snake to be a sounding board for Adam’s philosophy. The Bible says, “Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, `You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" -Gen 3:1. Not only is this snake “subtle”, but apparently, it can talk, and even walk, as we shall see later.

Is it my imagination, or is the word “subtle” a rather unusual choice for describing a snake? I grew up on a farm, and I would be hard pressed to characterize any animals as subtle. It’s just not a word that you use for animals. It’s like referring to a cow as “zany”.

Notice that the snake tells the truth (“your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”), whereas God lies (“in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”)

So, Eve figures, “What the heck?” , and eats the fruit. Surprisingly, the fact that she has just conversed with a snake does not cause her to pause. She focuses on what the snake has said.

I find this a little odd. If I came home from work, and my dog said, “Hey, how’s it going?”, I would be far more interested in his speaking ability than his message. Anyway, back to the story.

After eating the fruit, Eve gives some to Adam, and he eats it, too. Then God catches them. He asks Adam if he has eaten the fruit. Adam’s first reaction is normal. He blames his wife. That doesn’t go over well, so then he blames the snake.

That’s our grandpa.

So, God curses the humans. He tells them that they will die in that very day. True to form, Adam dies 930 years later of natural causes. I think God’s magic wand needs a tune up. As I mentioned earlier, the Bible is understood to be speaking literally, unless it says something stupid, at which point it becomes figurative. The 930 years was one big-ass figurative “day”, kind of like the creative days. God specifically curses Eve to pain in childbirth, then throws them out of the garden. He then blocks the way with a flaming sword, which wouldn’t be invented for centuries. (Did God invent the sword?)

God is really in a cursing mood. He even curses the snake: "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life” - Gen 3:14

This strikes me as a rather unusual curse. First of all, the snake has been cursed above the cattle, you know - the zany ones. Why are cattle cursed? I can picture one of them looking up, mouth full of straw, and asking, “What did WE do?” (Hey,if snakes can talk, why can’t cows?) Secondly, if the snake is now cursed to go on his belly, just precisely how did snakes “go” prior to the curse? They don’t have legs. Finally, does God actually think that snakes “eat dust”?

To me, God’s reaction seems a little over the top. Eating some fruit that is off limits is about on par with a parking ticket. Yet, God sentences Adam and Eve, and every human who has ever lived, to the death penalty. God should get a little perspective.

If this story is considered to be an alegory, it can be very instructive. There are some interesting correlations in this story. First of all, knowledge is linked to pain and death. This is significant on so many levels. Some persons, like Galileo, have suffered for revealing the truth. It is a testament to the human spirit that people will be willing to suffer and die for knowledge.

Also, this chapter contains the implication that freedom is more valuable than life. Life without freedom is not worth living.

Thirdly, from an evolutionary perspective, knowledge is indeed linked with pain in childbirth. Newborn humans have an exceptionally large head for their body size. It is our mental capacity (knowledge) that sets us apart from the animals and makes human childbirth painful. The Bible writer unwittingly made a link that is very profound.

Finally, the two parallel accounts of creation can give us insight in the intellectual development of early civilization.

Unfortunately, these observations are lost on those who literally believe the words of the Bible.

RAISING CAIN

A number of years ago, my sister had an unusual experience. At the time, she was also still a Jehovah’s Witness. While she was going from door to door, selling Watchtowers and Awakes, she encountered a man at one of the doors. Out the blue, the man asked her, “Do you know where Cain got his wife?” Before she could muster a reply, he answered his own question, “He married an ape. That’s where we get the ape man.”

This is a perfect example of how a very small amount of information can be worse than none at all. However, it does bring up a more serious issue. The Bible story of Cain and Abel is fraught with difficulties. Let’s run through a quick refresher of the story, and then examine some of the problems.

THE STORY
At the time of this story, the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve had two children, Cain and Abel. Abel was a shepherd, and Cain was a farmer.

One day, they went to offer sacrifices. Cain brought his best produce, while Abel killed a sheep, and offered the fat pieces. God was pleased with Abel, but not with Cain. So, Cain became jealous, and killed his brother.

God then went looking for Abel, and couldn’t find him. So he asked Cain. After accusing him of murdering Abel, he sentenced him to banishment. He would be cursed and must move to the “Land of Nod”, where he would be a fugitive and a wanderer.

Cain feared for his life. He was afraid that if anyone found him, they would kill him. So, God put a “mark”, or as some translations put it, a “sign”, on Cain, which indicated that if anyone killed him, he would be avenged seven times.

Cain then accepted his banishment. He went to live in Nod, where he married and had a son. He then built a city, which he named Enoch, after his son.

This story is very short. In only twenty three sentences, it raises several thought provoking classical literary themes. In this chapter, I will deal with none of them. Instead, I will focus on the problems encountered by those who are foolish enough to believe that this story literally happened, just as the Bible records it.

ABEL THE SHEPHERD
The first problem that we encounter may be unique to some of the more silly brands of fundamentalism. Having come from one of these, I must deal with it.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, and some others, believe that humans did not eat meat until after the flood. So, for approximately 1,600 years from creation to the flood, humans were vegetarians. They did not begin eating meat until this privilege was granted to humans in Genesis 9:3. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses go one step further. They believe that even animals were vegetarians until after the flood. They believe that grass is the natural, god-intended food for lions. Fossils of carnivorous dinosaurs are rather troublesome to them, so they ignore them.

This creates an interesting problem in the Cain and Abel story. As you recall, Abel was a shepherd. Now, don’t forget that there are only four people on the planet. Acquisition of food must have been their top priority.

So, the question arises, if they didn’t eat meat, what was Abel doing with all those sheep? Either he was a huge slacker (imagine 25% of the planetary labour force piddling around with their pets when they should be working), or he had some other purpose for them. Don’t forget that there were no women, other than their mother. I will say no more.

Cain the Farmer
Again, remember that there were only four people on the earth (OK, it’s possible that maybe there were some other, unmentioned children at this time, but certainly not more than a handful, which doesn’t materially change our story).

Now, we know that civilization goes through various phases of development. It begins with hunter/gatherer, then progresses to nomadic, agricultural, and finally, urban. Cain seems to have progressed straight to agricultural, which is more than a little strange. The Hebrew nation at the time of Abraham, 2,500 years later, was still in the nomadic phase. They must have moved backwards.

To top it off, at the end of the story, Cain built a city. So, Civilization appears to have developed at lightening speed.

THE SACRIFICES
For some reason, these two boys got it into their heads that God liked gifts. There is no record of sacrifices prior to this point. The concept of sacrifice appears to be a later development that is transposed back on this ancient setting by a later writer. Where did Cain and Abel get this idea, and how did they know what to offer?
Particularly, how could they possibly have known that God preferred dead animals over vegetables? Actually, this whole preference seems to be backwards. You would think that God would not want his precious, freshly created animals to be slaughtered and hacked up. If anything, the produce of their farm would be humanity’s most valuable possession, and would therefore be the most valued sacrifice.
I think God should rethink this part of the story, and make Abel the bad guy.

THE LAND OF NOD
This makes no sense to me. With only four people on the planet, why would there be another country?

The New World Translation of the Bible makes things even worse. It translates this name, not as the Land of Nod, but as the Land of Fugitiveness. Not only is this grammatically suspect, but it raises the problem: If there are only four people on the planet, and there has never before been a crime, there would be no fugitives, let alone enough of them to require their own “Land”.

CAIN’S SENTENCE
The Bible is pretty generous with the death penalty. It is prescribed for just about everything from blasphemy to gathering grain on the Sabath. It is especially adamant about murder. Yet, for some reason, with God himself acting as judge, Cain was not sentenced to death, even though he killed 25% of the population of the earth. You would think that God would want to make an example of him. This is an interesting precedent, that advocates of capital punishment might want to consider.
As part of his sentence, Cain must become a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth. So, he moves away, gets married, has children, and founds a city. That doesn’t sound like either a fugitive or a wanderer. So, apparently, Cain’s only punishment was the requirement to move to another region.
That’s not much of a punishment. In my life, I have moved several times. By my count, I have at least four free murders coming.

THE SIGN
Cain was concerned that someone would find him and kill him. It is also implied that there would be people around who knew he was a killer, but did not know that God had let him off.

This issue raises numerous concerns. First of all, why would anyone kill him? There was no man-made or god-made law that prescribed the death penalty for murderers. Cain had been judged by God and received his sentence. Everyone on the planet must have known it. Why would Cain think that there would be people who would kill him? Besides, who would be Abel’s avenger? His father and mother would have known the story, and Cain was his only brother. It is almost as if the story writer has forgotten how many people occupy the earth, and feels that Abel would have close relatives or friends who would come seeking revenge.

Likewise, why would Cain need identification? I am getting tired of mentioning that there were only four people around at the time.

Finally, where would he get the idea of revenge? There had never been any crime before, so obviously, there would never have been revenge up to this point. His concern seems to be based on a fairly well developed tradition of law, punishment and vengeance. These traditions were still centuries in the future.

THE CITY OF ENOCH
This is my favorite part of the story. Consider the list of problems that arise from this simple phrase:
· Cain was a fugitive and a wanderer. How could he found a city?
· The progress of civilization to the point of urbanization was still well into the future.
· What would be his purpose in building a city? There are numerous reasons to build a city, including things like protection, specialization of trades, or being a center for distribution. Considering the population at the time (one family of about three generations), none of these reasons would exist.
· Where would he get the people to inhabit the city? Enoch was the third generation from Adam. If Adam and Eve had ten surviving children, and each of their children paired up and had ten children, the world population would be 62. Even if you made some ridiculous assumptions about reproduction, the number would still not be enough to populate a village, let alone a city.
· Where would they get the surrounding population? In the early days of civilization, before the automation of agriculture, it was impossible for urban centers to achieve populations of greater than 1% or 2% of the region’s total population. It required 50-100 farmers to grow enough food to support themselves and one city dweller. Huge cities, like Athens and Rome, did not develop until many centuries later, and even then, they sat upon world empires. If the city of Enoch was very small, say 1,000 in population, the surrounding region must have had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000. This is approximately 1,000 times the population implied by the Bible. So, once again, I must ask, where did they get the people?

At this point, I must address one other housekeeping issue. The Bible says that Adam lived for 930 years. Other early Bible characters lived for similar lengths of time. It could be argued that this would allow for plenty of time for the population to grow.

Well, this argument is a long one, so for this chapter, I will consider it adequate to say that those long life spans are hogwash, and refer you to the chapter entitled “Of Numbers, Poop, and Other Things”

Up to this point, we have not even addressed the issue that started this discussion: Where did Cain get his wife?

The story implies, in many respects including this one, that there were other people around and about. Yet, the Bible story does not allow for this. All persons are descended from Adam and Eve. There were no other people. So, the only source for Cain’s wife would be his own sister.

This raises some interesting questions. For example, how does one go about courting one’s sister? I don’t suppose their courtship took the normal course, i.e. Cain meeting her at a party and chatting her up. I expect his pick up line looked something like this: “So, baby, if I were the only man on earth, would you go out out with me?” I bet it worked every time.

Then you have to wonder, did he ask her father for her hand? And, would Adam have declined, perhaps objecting to Cain’s religion (he was a bad sacrificer), or maybe to the fact that he was not just a convict, he was the world’s first and only convict? Apparently, Adam’s daughters must have liked “the bad boys”.

IN CONCLUSION
God’s not a very competent handiman. Notice that there were four people on the earth. Two of them had committed the original sin, supposedly the worst crime in history. One was a murderer. The other was dead. That’s not a very good track record. God must not have manufactured humans very well, since the first four models broke down.

Most of the problems in this story arise from the fact that it takes place in the very early days of the human race. The writer seems to have forgotten that point, and tells the story as if there were large quantities of people, even entire cities and countries in existence.

But, as we have seen, there are many other flaws as well. In summary, if you take this story literally, you find that there is a problem in virtually every phrase of the story. In fact, the list of problems is even longer than the story, itself.

THE NUMBERS OF THE BOOK

Every now and then, I run into someone who believes that every word in the Bible is literally true. If the Bible says that men lived for 900 years, and that 5 linear miles of water fell on the earth, then it must have happened. There is really no way to prove that these events did not happen, since by definition, a “miracle” is something extra-ordinary.

However, sometimes the Bible writers slipped up. When they told a story, nothing but superlatives would do. More than anything else, the numbers that are tossed around in the bible show this to be true. Apparently, mathematics was not their strong point, because on numerous occasions, the bible writers made statements that simply could not have happened.

So, basically, this chapter is sort of an accountants-eye view of the Bible.

SOLOMON, AND THE ISRAELITE ABATTOIR
King Solomon was a very devout man. He also liked to do things in big ways. Take, for example, the sacrifice that he offered up during a festival:

“Then the King and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD. King Solomon offered as a sacrifice twenty-two thousand oxen and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep.” - 2 Chronicles 7:4,5

Now, let’s pause for a moment and let these numbers sink in. According to verse 9, this festival lasted seven days. That means that one animal was killed every 4.3 seconds, day and night, for a week.

Let’s look at it another way. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, an adult sheep would weigh between 80 and 400 pounds. Let’s take an average size of 200 pounds. Oxen come it at around 900 pounds. This means that Solomon slaughtered 43.8 million pounds of animals.

This would be a pretty big pile of animal. If the animal carcasses were stacked, with no wasted space, it would make a pile of 3.9 million cubic feet, or, a pile 5 feet high, covering 18 acres.

And what did he do with this meat? Well according to verse 7, he tried to put it on the alter, along with a cereal grain offering.

“For there he offered the burnt offering and the fat of the peace offerings, because the bronze alter Solomon had made could not hold the burnt offering and the cereal offering and the fat.” - 2 Chronicles 7:7

Talk about an understatement. I could picture Solomon, looking at that mountain of meat, and saying to his attendant, “Gee, do you think that’s too much to put on the alter?”

The sheer volume of meat involved is enough to convince anyone that this passage is grossly exaggerated. I will not even attempt to calculate the economic impact of this slaughter on a relatively poor group of desert farmers.

THE MAGNIFICENT TEMPLE
Solomon’s temple was a lot smaller than most people picture it. 1 Kings 6:2 tells us that it was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. In a rare example of biblical precision, 2 Chronicles 3:3 gives exactly the same measurements. A cubit is 17.5 inches, so the temple would have been 87.5’ x 29’, and about 4 stories high. It would total 2,552 square feet in area. To put this in perspective, it would be less than twice the size of my house, but four stories high. This number is very important, so keep it in mind.

The total temple area was larger than simply the “house of the LORD”. There was a courtyard, a palace, and other buildings. However, as we will soon see, the contents and value are out by at least a factor of a thousand, so, a few extra buildings are hardly significant.

The Gold and Silver
“With great pains I have provided for the house of the LORD, a hundred thousand talents of gold, a million talents of silver, and bronze and iron without weighing, for there is so much of it; timber and stone, too, I have provided.” - 1 Chronicles 22:14

Since 1 talent = 75.5 pounds, this means that 7.55 million pounds of gold and 75.5 million pounds of silver went into the temple - a total of 83.05 million pounds of precious metal. Now, remember the size of the temple. To get this much gold and silver into the temple, there must have been 32,543 pounds of it per square foot. The priest must have had to crawl over the heaps of gold to get to the alter.

Here’s another interesting tidbit. One cubic foot of silver weighs 628.4 pounds. This means that the silver of the temple occupied 120,146 cubic feet. The total gross size of the temple was only 111,650 cubic feet. Therefore, if the silver of the temple was formed into a solid block, it would be bigger than the temple itself - never mind the gold, iron, bronze, timber, and stone.

In addition to the gold and silver, there was apparently so much bronze and iron that it could not even be weighed. Since the gold and silver weighed in at 83 million pounds, that means that the bronze and iron must have weighed considerably more (I will assume that it was double). We are now looking at somewhere in the range of 100,000 pounds of metal per square foot of the temple. That is the equivalent weight of 40 full size cars per square foot. And we haven’t even gotten to the rock and timber, yet.

The gold and silver equates to a dollar value of $54 Billion today. Even given the inflated population figures of Israel that are recorded in the Bible, it still means that every man, woman, and child in the nation contributed almost $20,000, or 40 pounds of gold and silver. In all likelihood, the population of Israel was only about 1/10 of the Biblical figures, so the contribution per person would have been approximately 10 times higher. And, of course, we have not costed the iron, bronze, rock, timber, and labour. Not bad for a group of poor desert farmers.

The Labour Force
“King Solomon raised a levy of forced labour out of all Israel; and the levy numbered thirty thousand men. And he sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month in relays; they would be a month in Lebanon and two months at home; Adoniram was in charge of the levy. Solomon also had seventy thousand burden bearers and eighty thousand hewers of stone in the hill country, besides Solomon’s three thousand three hundred chief officers who were over the work, who had charge of the people who carried on the work.” - 1 Kings 5:13-16

By my count, this comes to 183,300 persons who worked on this temple. To put this in perspective, it took 1,283,000 man-years to build the temple, or 503 man-years to build each square foot it.

If I apply this rate of construction to my living room, which is 20’ x 12’, it would take over 120,000 man years to build it. To put it yet another way, if a construction team of 100 persons (which is too big to function on such a small job) worked on building my living room, it would take them 1,200 years to build it.

If 183,000 people really worked for seven years to build a 2,552 square foot temple, they must have worked at a snail’s pace. Their progress could only be measured at the molecular level.

The lumber
According to the above quote, 10,000 labourers brought lumber from Lebanon at a time. There were a total of 30,000 labourers rotating on three shifts. Assuming that each labourer brought back 100 pounds of lumber on each trip, that means that one million pounds of lumber arrived at the temple every month. Don’t forget that the temple was only 2,552 square feet, and it was already piled with gold, silver, bronze, and iron.

That’s almost 400 pounds of lumber per square foot, coming in every month. Every year, the equivalent of 240 semi-trailer loads would have arrived. Where did they put it all?

The staff
When the temple was finished and put into operation, staff was required. King David outlined the staffing requirements:

“’Twenty four thousand of these,’ David said, ‘shall have charge of the work in the house of the LORD, six thousand shall be officers and judges, four thousand gatekeepers, and four thousand shall offer praises to the LORD with the instruments which I have made for praise.” - 1 Chronicles 23:4,5

So, 24,000 persons were to work in the house of the Lord. This must have been a pretty slack job. Based on the size of the temple and courtyard, and considering that access to certain parts of the temple was restricted to the priests and high priest, there couldn’t possibly be room for more than about 100 people at a time. This means that each Levite would have worked for only about one day per year. Where can I apply?

The total contents
Wow, this must have been some building. Consider what was inside its walls:
6,260 cubic feet of gold
120,146 cubic feet of silver
338,000 cubic feet of iron (minimum estimate)
321,000 cubic feet of bronze (minimum estimate)
600,000 cubic feet of Lebanese Cedar arrived every year
untold quantities of stone, brick, and local timbers
24,000 staff (not necessarily simultaneous)
Assorted fixtures, the Ark of the Covenant, etc.

All of this was inside a building with a total volume of only 111,650 cubic feet. And, don’t forget that buildings are essentially hollow. Again, all I can say is, “Wow”.

HOLY QUAIL!
An unusual account is recorded in Numbers 11. It begins with the Israelites short of food, and looking for a little meat:

“Therefore the LORD will give you meat, and you shall eat. You shall not eat one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, but a whole month, until it comes out at your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you.” - Numbers 11:18-20

So, God sends them a little meat:

“And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and it brought quails from the sea, and let them fall beside the camp, about a day’s journey on this side, and a day’s journey on the other side, round about the camp, and about two cubits above the face of the earth.” - Numbers 11:31

Now, let’s calculate just how many quail are involved, here. Most bible dictionaries consider a day’s journey to be approximately 20 miles. So, a circle with a radius of 20 miles would have an area of 1,256 sq. miles. The quail filled this area to a depth of 2 cubits, or 35 inches.

This makes 102 billion cubic feet of quail. The quail is a fairly small bird, averaging one pound in weight, and 13 inches in height. Based on this size, each quail would occupy 0.72 cubit feet. Therefore, God must have blessed the Israelites with approximately 142 billion quail. That’s over 47,000 quail for every Israelite. It must have been like an early version of Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds.

Now, I’m not sure of the world population of quail, however, the current world population of chickens is only 30 Billion. Chickens likely outnumber quail by at least 100 to 1, since chickens are commonly raised in huge commercial quantities in our modern, crowded earth. So, when the Israelites asked God for a little meat, little did they suspect that he would respond with over 500 times the entire world population of quail.

Before I finish with the quail, I must point out the end result of the meat harvest.

“While the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was consumed, the anger of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.” - Numbers 11:33

I thought God said that they would get to eat the quail for a whole month.

JUST HOW BIG WAS NINEVAH?

“So Jonah arose and went to Ninevah, according to the word of the LORD. Now, Ninevah was an exceedingly great city, three days journey in breadth. Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey.” - Jonah 3:3,4

A day’s journey in ancient times was approximately 20 miles, so, Ninevah would have been 60 miles in diameter. It would have occupied 2,826 square miles. That’s one big city.

Let’s make a few comparisons. New York City occupies only 304 square miles. In that area, 7,322,564 people are housed. This gives a population density of 24,000 people per square mile. By contrast, I live in a small city of 195,000, which occupies 42 square miles, for a density of 4,600.

Most ancient cities were fairly dense, due to the logistical difficulties in feeding, watering, and cleaning up after large numbers of people before the age of mass transportation systems, not to mention the cost of building the city walls. For example, ancient Pompeii had a population of 20,000, inside walls with a circumference of 2 miles, for a density of 62,500 persons per square mile. If Ninevah had an average density of 50,000 people per square mile, it must have had a population of 141,300,000.

Since New York is considered to be a “great city” by most standards, Ninevah must have been stupendous. It was 9 times larger than New York in land area, and 19 times larger in population.

But wait, the bible gives us the population of Ninevah:

“And should not I pity Ninevah, that great city in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” - Jonah 4:11

One hundred and twenty thousand persons, spread over 2,826 square miles is only 42 persons per square mile - that’s 15 acres per person, or 60 acres for a family of four. That’s not a city.

Realistically, we could expect Ninevah to have a walled circumference of approximately seven miles, assuming that the population figures are accurate. Interestingly, archeologists have found walls that likely were Ninevah, and they were about seven miles around.

So, Ninevah was not a three day journey in breadth, unless Jonah was a really slow walker. So slow, in fact, that he could have gotten a job working on the temple.

THE REALLY BIG WALL

“And the rest fled into the city of Aphek; and the wall fell upon twenty-seven thousand men that were left.” 1 Kings 20:30

That must have been a pretty big wall. To calculate the precise way that this happened, we must first of all calculate the size of Aphek.

The above discussion outlined the sizes of various walled cities. Ninevah, a “great city”, had a circumference of about seven miles. Pompeii’s was about two miles. Aphek is barely mentioned in the Bible, and is never referred to as being great, so we can assume that it was likely much smaller than either of these two cities. That would give it a circumference of less than two miles. Let’s use 1.5 miles for this discussion. This size would be on the upper limit of what would be reasonable.

If these men were standing against the wall, shoulder to shoulder, they would each occupy about two linear feet. That means that there would need to be seven concentric circles of men, standing against the wall when it fell. The entire wall must have fallen simultaneously, with none of the men getting out of the way, or shielding themselves. As well, the wall must have fallen outward in all places, as if there had been a great explosion.

THE BUSY MIDWIVES

When the Israelites were in captivity in Egypt, Pharaoh made an unusual request. He called the Israelite midwives before him, and commanded them to kill all Hebrew male children as they were born.

Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiph'rah and the other Pu'ah, "When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live." But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. - Ex 1:15-17

Did you notice that there were only two midwives, and they are mentioned by name? They must have been pretty busy women.

How busy were they? Well, Exodus 12:37 numbers the Israelites who left Egypt at 600,000 men, plus women and children. According to the Bible, the total population of the group would have been around 1.8 million in total. If we assume that the Israelites lived for an average of 80 years, and that their birth rate was stable, that means that there would be an average of 22,500 births per year, or 61 per day. If these two women worked 12 hours per day, seven days per week, each one of them would deliver a baby every 23 minutes.

But, actually, the birth rate must have been much higher than this. It could not have been stable. According to the Exodus 12:40, the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. During this time, 70 immigrants multiplied to 1.8 million. So, the birthrate must have been accelerating. The number of births by the time that Pharaoh gave his command would be much higher than my original forecast.

There is yet another problem with this story. According to Exodus 6:16-20, Moses was the great grandson of Levi. Moses’ grandfather came to Egypt as a child with his father. So, this population of 1.8 million arose from a mere 70 immigrants over only three generations. Even if we ignore the fact that the combined ages of the generations listed only comes to 352 (1) , not 430, we are still faced by a huge problem. By my calculations (2), each woman would need to have 320 babies, with zero mortality rate.

I don’t know who I pity more - the women, or the midwives.

CONCLUSION

So, when the Bible says that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old, can we really take it at face value? In fact, if it can be conclusively proven that the Bible is filled with exaggerations, what else is it lying about?

Footnotes:

(1) These are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations: Gershon, Kohath, and Merar'i, the years of the life of Levi being a hundred and thirty-seven years. The sons of Gershon: Libni and Shim'e-i, by their families. The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uz'ziel, the years of the life of Kohath being a hundred and thirty-three years. The sons of Merar'i: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites according to their generations. Amram took to wife Joch'ebed his father's sister and she bore him Aaron and Moses, the years of the life of Amram being one hundred and thirty-seven years. - Exodus 6:16-20

These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob, each with his household: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah,... All the offspring of Jacob were seventy persons - Exodus 1:1,2,5

The time that the people of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. - Exodus 12:40

So, Levi came to Egypt with his son Kohath, among others. Kohath lived to be 133 years old. His son Amram, who lived to be 137 years old, became father to Moses. Moses was 80 years old when the events of the Exodus took place.

If we give the Bible the benefit of every doubt, and assume that Kohath was a newborn baby when he came to Egypt, and that each man fathered a child on the day of his death, we come to the following calculation:
Entered Egypt, Kohath is a baby Year 0
Amram is born Add 133 = Year 133
Moses is born Add 137 = Year 270
Exodus begins Add 80 = Year 350

Now, if we assume that Amram and Kohath fathered their children on the day of their death, and the children were born posthumously, then we can add another year and a half, giving an absolute maximum of 351.5 years in Egypt.

So, even if we accept the unbelievable life span of these men, and make ridiculous assumptions about their age when reproducing, the numbers still do not add up.

(2) Here is the calculation for the required birthrate.

Jacob’s generation (given) 12 persons
Kohath’s generation (given) 70 persons (35 females)
Amram’s generation 35 x 320 = 11,200 persons (5,600 females)
Moses generation 5,600 x 320 = 1,792,000 persons

So, in order for the population to grow from 70 persons to 1.8 million in only three generations, a birthrate of over 320 children per family, with zero mortality would be required. This is rather curious since Moses ancestor’s (see above) only averaged three male children per family, so some woman must have had to make up the slack.
KILL ‘EM AGAIN GOD, THE OLD FASHIONED WAY

There’s nothing that the Bible likes better than a good, old fashioned, smiting. In fact, the Bible writers liked killing so much, that sometimes, they couldn’t restrain themselves from killing the same people several times. This undoubtedly felt so good at the time that they didn’t worry about the apologetic problems that would arise later.

This chapter deals with some of the more obvious ones.

PHARAOH'S REMARKABLE HORSES

Going once:

In response to Pharaoh's hard heartedness in not letting the Israelites leave, God sent ten plagues upon Egypt. The fifth plague consisted of pestilence. In Exodus 9:6, the New English Bible describes it like this: “And Jehovah did this thing the next day, and all the Egyptian’s stock died, but of the stock that belonged to the sons of Israel, not one died.”

So, there they go. All of the Egyptians livestock are now dead.

Going twice:

Unfortunately, the dead animals haven’t learned their lesson, so when plague 10 rolls around , they get targeted again. Exodus 12:29 informs us: “And at midnight, Jehovah struck every firstborn in Egypt, from the Pharaoh's firstborn, who was to sit on his throne, to the firstborn of the prisoners of war in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.”

Notice that “every firstborn in Egypt” is killed. This would mean every firstborn of every family of humans and animals. Cattle are specifically listed. I wonder what they did to deserve this notoriety. They always seem so unassuming. They must be plotting something.

Now, how is it that the firstborn of animals are killed, when all of the animals had already been killed in plague 5? Please note that if every firstborn is killed, that would also include horses. I bring this up because it becomes important in a minute.

Going three times?

Well, stubborn Pharaoh still hasn’t learned his lesson. After a momentary lapse where he lets the Israelites go, he changes his mind and chases after them. Exodus 14:9 points out: “And the Egyptians pursued them, and overtook them camping by the sea, all the Pharaoh's chariot-ponies and cavalry horses and his troops, by Pi-Hahiroth, in front of Baal-Sephan.”

The Israelites must have been moving slowly indeed, if Pharaoh overtook them on twice-dead ponies. In spite of the remarkable accomplishments of these dead steeds, they get it one more time. In Exodus 14:23, the Red Sea washes over the Egyptians, killing them, their ponies, and their cavalry horses.

It’s too bad these horses were so thoroughly killed. These remarkable animals would surely have made valuable breeding stock.

The Amalekites - Three Time Losers

The Amalekites caught the brunt of God’s anger several times. Their first death was recorded in 1 Samuel 15:7,8: “And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is East of Egypt. And he took Agag, the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.”

So, no more Amalekites, right? Wrong! Shortly after, while Saul was still King and David was a military leader, they return. Not bad for a tribe that was utterly destroyed. 1 Samuel 27:8,9 says: “Now David and his men went up, and made raids upon the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, for these were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as far as Shur, to the land of Egypt. And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive...”

Well, that should just about finish them off. They were “utterly destroyed”, followed by a good smiting. Since neither man nor woman was left alive, that should pretty much do it for the Amalekites.

Not quite. In 1 Samuel 30:1, they’re back, and stronger than ever: “Now when David and his men came to Ziklag, on the third day, the Amalekites had made a raid upon the Negeb, and upon Ziklag.” They seem pretty feisty for a group that has just been killed twice. What’s a righteous king to do with people like this? You guessed it, kill them again.

1 Samuel 30:17: “And David smote them from twilight until the evening of the next day, and not a man of them escaped, except four hundred young men who mounted camels and fled. David recovered all that the Amalekites had taken, and David rescued his two wives.”

Smiting is apparently rather time consuming. I also find it amusing that “not a man of them escaped”, except for four hundred men.

Well, that pretty well wraps it up for the Amalekites. But wait. In Esther 3:1, a reference is made to “Haman, the Agagite.” If you look in 1 Samuel 15:7,8, which is quoted above, you will find that Agag was the King of Amalek. So, when the events recorded in Esther took place, around 484 B.C., there were still Amalekites alive and well.

God certainly had it in for the Amalekites. Not only did he entirely wipe them out three times, but he even intended to destroy the memory of them. Exodus 17:14 says: “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.”

Now, that’s good thinking. If God wanted to blot out the memory of Amalek, why would he set up a memorial in the most widely published book in history? Apparently he didn’t do a very good job of blotting out Amalek. Not only can we still read about him, but his ancestors survived for about another 800 years. For all we know, there might still be some around...

One of the worst cases of multiple death syndrome (MDS), that is recorded in the Bible is King Saul. He was not a very popular man. It seemed that everyone wanted him dead - himself, the Philistines, his attendant, and even God. Let’s take a look at some of his deaths.

1 Samuel 31:4 - “Therefore, Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.” This is a pretty straight forward, definitive statement of how Saul died.

In the next chapter, 2 Samuel 1, a young Amalekite takes credit for Saul’s murder. You can hardly blame him, after being killed three times himself, he probably just wanted to be on the giving end of one of these deaths. In verse 10, he claims: “So I stood beside him, and I slew him...”. Technically, this is not a problem in the bible. It is understood that the young man was lying. It’s really just an interesting aside in the chain of events.

In 2 Samuel 21:12, we find another definitive statement regarding Saul’s death: “David went and took the bones of Saul, and the bones of his son Jonathan from the men of Jabesh-Gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-Shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa.”

Did you notice the problem, here? Yes, that was a terrible run-on sentence. In addition, we now find that Saul did not commit suicide after all, but rather, was killed by the Philistines.

But, we’re not done, yet. In 1 Chronicles, chapter 10, another person takes credit for Saul’s death, and we have to assume that this one isn’t lying. Verses 13 and 14: “So Saul died for his unfaithfulness... Therefore, the Lord slew him, and turned the kingdom over to David, the son of Jesse.”

So, Saul committed suicide, was killed in war, and was executed by God. I guess the Bible writers really wanted him dead.

JUDAS GETS IT TWICE

One of the prime laws governing any story character is: Don’t mess with the author. Killing the author tends to be a career limiting move for a character.

Now, no one denies that Judas Iscariot was a bad dude. Killing the son of God is bad enough, but as a character in a book, he should know that the author always has the last word. So, it’s not too surprising that Judas gets nailed twice. What makes this even more remarkable is that in both cases, he does it himself.

The first suicide of Judas is recorded in Matthew 27:5. “And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.”

Now, in all fairness, the Bible does not say that Judas died from the hanging. Although, I think most people would assume that he did. In fact, if the hanging was not fatal, why bother mentioning it at all?

Acts 1:18 couldn’t leave well enough alone. The writer of this book had to come up with an even better story - and it really is better, filled with gory details: “Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.”

Apparently, the writer of Acts couldn’t resist finding a prophecy fulfillment in Judas’ death, so he found an obscure scripture in Psalms and made the events fit the reference. As a bit of speculation, I wonder if this is where we get the expression, “bought the farm.”

Some people have put forward the hypothesis that he hanged himself on a tree that had a branch overhanging a cliff. When he jumped off, the branch broke, and he fell, splitting himself open. This isn’t a bad story, except that it is pure speculation - there is nothing in the bible to indicate that it happened. As well, under this scenario, he would not “fall headlong”. He would have fallen feet first.

However this really happened, it is clear that God’s inerrant word of truth is a little confused.
DEATH, AND OTHER MINOR AILMENTS

When I die (God forbid), I certainly hope that it’s not from anything serious. In Bible times, it appears that very few things were ever serious. People seemed to be able to recover from just about anything.

In this chapter, we will explore some of the Bible characters who survived that most serious of all maladies - death. On numerous occasions, a Bible character is killed off, only to reappear in a later chapter or book. Either these were an extremely hardy group of individuals, or someone’s fact checker was in the bar when he should have been checking facts.

THE MIDIANITES

The Midianites engaged in a great sin. They allowed some of the Israelites to have sex with them. As a result, they had to be punished.

Moses, the meekest of all men, issued the order to kill all of the Midianites. Numbers 31:7 tells us that the obedient Israelites “slew every male.” When Moses found out about this, he was furious, and rightly so, because the Israelites had let the women and evil children live. What follows next is one of the most bloodthirsty genocides recorded in the Bible. This meek man issues the command (vs 17) to “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.” Mercifully, though, he decrees that the young girls could just be raped. Verse 18 says “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” All together, 32,000 virgins are taken as “booty” (vs 35).

As an aside, it should be mentioned that the Midianites were being punished for fornication. Part of the remedy for that great sin is to take 32,000 young virgins as booty. Does anyone see a bit of a double standard, here?

I suppose I could pause for a moment and comment on the development of the modern expression “booty”, but that hardly seems necessary.

So, the Midianites are completely wiped out. Every man, every boy, and every woman has been killed. The young girls have been individually assimilated into the Hebrew camp. The Midianite race hereby ceases to exist.

But, not for long. Judges 6:1,2 tells us: “The people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord gave them into the hand of Midian seven years. And the hand of Midian prevailed over Israel; and because of Midian, the people of Israel made for themselves the dens which are in the mountains, and the caves and the strongholds.”

So, after complete annihilation, the Midianites soon are not only back, but are numerous enough to dominate the multi-million (according to the bible) population of the Israelites. Just how numerous were they? Well according to Judges 8:10, there were 135,000 warriors, indicating a total population of at least 400,000. I guess genocide and mass murder aren’t all that serious after all.

The moral of this story is: never pick up an Israelite in a bar.

JABIN, KING OF HAZOR

Another example of someone whose death didn’t quite “take”, was Jabin, the King of Hazor.

In Joshua, chapter 11, the story is told of several tribes who tried to stop the bloodthirsty reign of terror of the Israelites. Jabin, the King of Hazor, sends word to several other kings. So, they muster their forces. “And they came out, with all their troops, a great host, in number like the sand that is upon the seashore, with very many horses and chariots.” (vs 4)

Joshua asks Jehovah what to do. In response, God issues his standard death order. So Joshua goes forth killing in the name of God. “And the Lord gave them into the hand of Israel, who smote them, and chased them as far as great Sidon and Misrephothmaim, and eastward as far as the valley of Mizpeh; and they smote them until they left none remaining.” (vs 8)

Just so that there is no doubt, the bible specifically mentions Jabin. “And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote its king with the sword; for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms.” (vs 10)

So, the armies of these kingdoms were destroyed, Jabin was killed, and then Joshua went one step further. He left the army dead on the field of battle, and turned his attention to the city itself. “And they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire.” (vs 11)

Just to summarize: the army of Hazor was destroyed; Jabin, the king, was killed; the city was burned; and every breathing person in it was killed. That’s pretty final.

But, not long after, they were back. Judges chapter 4 begins by saying that the Israelites were doing what was evil in the sight of the Lord. So, as punishment, “the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin, king of Canaan, who ruled in Hazor...” (vs 2)

Not only did Jabin and the people of Hazor come back to life, but they were so numerous and strong that they could purchase the Israelites as slaves. This may have something to do with their secret weapon. “Then the people of Israel cried to the Lord for help; for he had nine hundred chariots of iron and oppressed the people of Israel cruelly for twenty years.” (vs 3)

As an aside, there appears to be a bit of a mixed review on the effectiveness of iron chariots. On the one hand God tells the Israelites, “For you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong.” (Joshua 17:18) On the other hand, “the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.” (Judges 1:19) Almighty God must not have realized just how tough those iron chariots were, when he made his initial boast. It appears that a little technology, and I do mean a little, can defeat an army that has God’s backing.

I saw a television show the other night that ranked the world’s 10 worst jobs. Coming in the clear and uncontested winner was a man with the unenviable profession of “Septic Tank Diver”. Apparently, this fellow dresses in a sealed wet suit, attaches a mask and oxygen tank, and then dives into huge pools of poop. I guess, when you think about it, someone has to perform repairs on the interior of huge urban sewage treatment facilities. You just never think it will happen to you.

Now, a person naturally has to wonder how a worker gets recruited to this job. I don’t imagine that any young person grows up with the aspiration of someday becoming a septic tank diver. I would also think that running an ad in your local Help Wanted section wouldn’t have many takers, either. It must be more of a conscription process. Possibly, the workers in the plant sit around looking at each other, asking who will do the job. Finally, someone breaks and accepts it. Maybe straws of varying lengths are involved. Or, more likely, the management of the plant searches out a skilled diver of easy virtue and makes him an offer he can’t refuse.

Either way, I’ll take sitting at a computer, writing funny Bible stories any day. Which brings me to my topic. The Bible mentions several unsavory activities, focusing primarily on the purpose and effect of the action, without any attention given to the persons who performed it. Like our septic tank diver, these people found themselves in some of the worst professions known to mankind. I think it’s time they got the recognition they deserved. Let’s visit some of them.

Foreskin Harvester

Consider this account from the life and times of King David:

David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife. - 1 Samuel 18:27
The story, as told in the Bible, hits the major high points. David kills some of his enemies, brings the evidence to the king, and is richly rewarded. Unfortunately, it glosses over the logistics of the situation that we all know are necessary.
These foreskins didn’t just jump into a bucket for David. Someone had to slice these puppies off of the cadavers, and perform general inventory functions - counting, storing, transporting, etc. I don’t imagine it was done by the incoming King, either.
Likely, the distasteful job fell to the staff person with the least seniority. It must have been a bad day to be low man on the totem pole.

Hemorrhoid Sculptor/Model

A truly bizarre story is told in the book of 1 Samuel. Apparently, the ark of the covenant, which was a sacred relic of the Israelites that was believed to contain God’s presence, was stolen by the Philistines. They brought it back to their land, and set it before their God, Dagon. All told, they kept the ark for seven months.

Unfortunately for the Philistines, retention of the ark had a rather nasty side effect:

And it was so that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction; and He smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had hemorrhoids in their secret parts... And the men who died not were smitten with the hemorrhoids; and the cry of the city went up to heaven. - 1 Samuel 5:9,12

I guess you could say that the ark was a huge pain in the ass for the Philistines.

The Bible writer seems to be a master of restating the obvious. For example, the reference to “secret parts” seems to be redundant. Where else would you get hemorrhoids? Likewise, it doesn’t seem necessary to mention that the dead bodies were not afflicted. I think that could have been assumed.

The following question also arises: If the God of Israel had enough power to plague the Philistines and bring them to their knees (or in this case, their donut shaped pillows) then why couldn’t he just have prevented the ark from being stolen and desecrated for seven months? That would have saved a lot of effort for everyone.

Now, in every primitive culture, there is a reasonable remedy for every problem. And, of course, they found the solution that I’m sure any modern doctor would recommend:

Then said they, "What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him?" They answered, "Five golden hemorrhoids and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines; for one plague was on you all and on your lords. Therefore ye shall make images of your hemorrhoids and images of your mice that mar the land, and ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel. Perhaps he will lighten his hand from you and from your gods and from your land. - 1 Samuel 6:4,5 (21 Century KJV)

The obvious solution to the problem was, of course, to sculpt images of the offending hemorrhoids. They also threw in a few golden mice, just for good measure. The intended result? - giving glory to the God of Israel. I’m not sure how they came to the conclusion that God would be honored by this gift, but to their credit, it seemed to work. And we modern people waste all that money on Preparation H and surgery.

I actually have a point to this story, although it seems to have been left behind at the moment. Here it is: someone had to sculpt these hemorrhoids, and presumably, someone had to model for them. I think I will place hemorrhoid model as the second worst job in the land, with hemorrhoid sculptor in first place.

Temple Testicle Inspector

In the Bible’s judicial code, there are several laws that must have required some specialized enforcement procedures. For example:

Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles. (Duet 23:1) I’m not sure what purpose this served, but that is a discussion for another time. For the moment, let us consider the enforcement issue. If you encountered a person on the street whose testicles were not in complete working order, how would you know? Most people do not publicize this information. The only possible way would be through either voluntary disclosure, which would surely be abused, or some sort of inspection process.
If a couple has sex during the woman’s period, the two are to be cut off from their people. (Lev 20:18) Once again, how would anyone know that this had happened? They certainly aren’t going to tell anyone. The answer could only be - yes, once again - the testicle inspector to the rescue.

Depending on your inclination, this may or may not be a good job.

This also raises the question of consistency. In order for all testicle inspectors to be objective, yet discriminating, it would be necessary for a code of standards to be developed, and testicle inspectors to be accredited and licensed. Undoubtedly, the venerated “TTI” designation would be greatly sought after.

So, here they are folks, the unsung heroes of the Bible. The people who slice off the foreskins, sculpt the hemorrhoids, and check the nubblies. These are truly the heroes of the Bible, not the Prophets or the Kings.

To all of the septic tank divers of the world, past and present, I salute you!

THOSE REMARKABLE WOMEN

Throughout its pages, the Bible is consistent in its treatment of women. This is probably the kindest thing that can be said about God’s gender relations. He is consistent. From start to finish, the Bible is unwavering in its opinion of women as inferior and unworthy possessions.

The Bible seems to have had it in for women right from the start. It was man that was created in God’s image, whereas woman was an afterthought that was manufactured out of spare man parts. The Bible documents that the first woman in history made a pretty big mess of things. Eve messed things up for the whole human race by eating of the forbidden fruit. So, since that time, woman has been blamed for all sin, imperfection, sickness, and death. As a result of Eve’s action, all women born on the face of the earth have been cursed to feel pain during childbirth and be dominated by men.

All of the above things happened before the end of the first three chapters of the Bible. And from that point on, things didn’t get any better.

In the notorious twenty seventh chapter of Leviticus, the relative value of humans is placed in dollar terms. Humans that are dedicated to God are assigned a sacrifice value, measured in shekels. Not surprisingly, male humans are assigned a greater value, with a female being worth between 50% and 67% of a male’s value.

The book of Proverbs sums up the Bible’s view of women quite succinctly when it says: “A capable wife is a crown to her owner.” (Proverbs 12:4 NWT)

You might expect that things improved for women in the New Testament, but alas, any improvement was minor. Although they made some progress beyond the level of possessions, they were still treated as subordinates, and denied any privileges in the congregation. Many Christian churches today, including the biggest of them all, do not allow women clergy. The Apostle Paul’s viewpoint on the matter is summed up below:

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.” - 1 Corinthians 14:33,34

Fundamentalist religions go even beyond this level. I grew up in a religion that allowed women the freedom to work as hard as they wanted, but would not grant any form of recognition or prestige to them. In fact, they took the following scripture quite literally:

“Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven.” - 1 Corinthians 11:4,5

In my particular religion, there was a rule that a woman could not say a prayer aloud in front of a baptized man. The baptized man must say the prayer. If the man was unable to say the prayer, or if the only present man was unbaptized, a woman could say the prayer, but only if she had a head covering.

This created an occasional problem. When the rule was made, hats for both men and women were very common, but over the years, fewer and fewer people wore hats. There were situations where a woman would need to say a prayer, but couldn’t find anything suitable to put on her head. I can still bring to mind an event from my childhood, where my mother, who was the equal of any man in religious matters, said a prayer for a small group with a paper napkin on her head. Pretty classy.

The Bible has a long and unvarying history of discrimination against women. Undoubtedly, no other book has done more to prevent gender equality. But, to be fair, the Bible didn’t actually invent sexual discrimination, it merely reflected it.

It is unfortunate that the Bible did not recognize the talents of the women in its pages, because some of them were truly remarkable. This chapter deals with some of the amazing women of the Bible.

The Old and the Beautiful
Sarah was a looker. There was no doubt about it. We know this for a fact, because on one occasion, Abraham and Sarah took a trip to Egypt, and on that trip, Abraham was so worried about Sarah’s beauty that he came up with a plan. He was afraid that the Egyptians would kill him so that they could take his wife. Here is the plan:

“When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to Sar'ai his wife, ‘I know that you are a woman beautiful to behold; and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, “This is his wife”; then they will kill me, but they will let you live. Say you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that my life may be spared on your account.’ When Abram entered Egypt the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. And when the princes of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.” - Genesis 12:11-15

So, Sarah went along with the plan, and apparently lived as a wife of Pharaoh for a while. This story is plausible. There are beautiful women in the world, and Abraham would not be the first husband blown away by a new suitor. Unfortunately, Sarah was a little old for this kind of attention. Genesis 12:4 tells us that when this trip took place, Abraham was 75 years old. According to Genesis 17:17, Sarah was ten years younger than him. So, this temptress was 65 years old when she turned the head of Pharaoh. And don’t forget that Pharaoh had a harem full of young, beautiful, women.

But, it gets even better. Eight chapters later, it happens again - same story, same plan by Abraham:

“And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, ‘She is my sister.’ And Abim'elech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.” - Genesis 20:2

Now, this is getting a little ridiculous. By this time, Sarah is 90 years old. Not only is she old, but no one has any illusions about her allure. These words were spoken prior to the fling with Abimelech:

“Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?’" - Genesis 18:11,12

Apparently, she still had a fair bit of pleasure coming.

But, let’s bring this back to reality. The Pharaoh story, with Sarah at 65 years of age, was a little hard to swallow, but this is ridiculous.

On the other hand, maybe these early kings, with harems full of beautiful young girls, both had a kinky thing for old women. Could this be where we get the modern expression “Abimilech-bait”?

Hagar the Horrible
Sarah, the wife of Abraham, had an Egyptian slave girl named Hagar. When Sarah was unable to have children, she suggested that Abraham take Hagar to produce a child on her behalf. Abraham agreed, and a child, Ishmael, was born.

The Bible describes Hagar as a pretty much normal woman. But, if we look below the surface at one of the bible events, we find that she must have been extremely large and powerful. Notice how forcefully she handles her young son:

“So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, "Let me not look upon the death of the child." And as she sat over against him, the child lifted up his voice and wept.” - Genesis 21:14-16

Notice that Hagar carried her son on her shoulder. She also cast him under a bush, and then went away to let him die of exposure. This seems fairly plausible, providing Ishmael is a small child. How big was he? Well, let’s calculate.

To begin, we need to determine the age of Ishmael when the events of the story take place. Here are some references to help:

“Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish'mael to Abram.” - Genesis 16:16

“Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, ‘Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’” - Genesis 17:17 (speaking of the birth of Isaac)

“And the child grew, and was weaned; and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned.” - Genesis 21:8

So, Ishmael was 14 years old when Isaac was conceived, making him approximately 15 years older than Isaac. When our story takes place, Isaac has just been weaned. The Bible does not say how old Isaac was at this time, but it was probably somewhere in the neighborhood of two years. This number couldn’t be out by more than a few years. So, Ishmael must now be around 17. This conclusion is backed by the reason for the events. Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away because Ishmael had been teasing Isaac. It would be difficult to taunt an infant, so the 17 year age for Ishmael would be on the low end of possible ages.

Now, let’s go back and rethink Hagar’s actions. First of all, she carried her 17 year old son on her shoulder. My son is 14. He is almost as tall as I am. I suspect that I am bigger and stronger than Hagar, but I wouldn’t consider carrying my son on my shoulder. The hernia would be secondary to the absurdity of the spectacle.

Then she cast him under a bush and left him to die. Why would he die? He would just get up and walk away. If anything, Hagar would probably die of exposure before he did.

But, since we know that the Bible is accurate and infallible in all its details, then we can only conclude that Hagar must have been built like Andre the Giant.

The Geriatric Beauty Queen
The book of Esther records the story of an ancient beauty pageant. The King of Assyria had become displeased with his wife and was looking for a successor. So, a contest was held to find the most pleasing young virgin in the empire.

“Then the King’s servants who attended him said, ’Let beautiful young virgins be sought out for the king. And let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom to gather all the beautiful young virgins to the harem in Susa the Capital, under the custody of Hegai the king’s eunuch, who is in charge of the women; let their ointments be given them. And let the maiden who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti.’” - Esther 2:2-4

It’s clear that he was looking for someone young and exceptionally beautiful. As a king with a harem, he could be pretty choosy. The call went out specifically for young virgins.

A Jewish girl, named Esther, turned out to be the most pleasing girl in the empire. She was chosen by the king, and was installed as his queen. The story goes on to tell about the events of the day, and how the Jews were saved from genocide by the actions of courageous Queen Esther.

The problem with this story is that the time and age numbers do not add up. To begin, let’s place the story in history:

“In those days when King Ahasuerus sat on his throne in Susa the Capital, in the third year of his reign, he gave a banquet for all his princes and servants.” - Esther 1:2,3

The third year of the reign of king Ahasuerus was 484 B.C. Now, let’s get the age of Esther, calculated through her uncle and step father, Mordecai.

“Now there was a Jew in Susa the capital whose name was Mor'decai, the son of Ja'ir, son of Shim'e-i, son of Kish, a Benjaminite, who had been carried away from Jerusalem among the captives carried away with Jeconi'ah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnez'zar king of Babylon had carried away. He had brought up Hadas'sah, that is Esther, the daughter of his uncle, for she had neither father nor mother; the maiden was beautiful and lovely, and when her father and her mother died, Mor'decai adopted her as his own daughter.” - Esther 2:5-7

So, Mordecai had been one of the captives taken to Babylon in the year 597 B.C. If he was a newborn baby when this happened, he could not be less than 113 years old when this story took place. Likely, he would be even older than this. Esther was his cousin.
What is the maximum age difference between two cousins? Well, my father is the youngest of nine children, and I am his youngest child. I have a cousin who is thirty years older than me. This is much higher than average. If we use the extreme low figure for the age of Mordecai when he was taken to Babylon (113), and the extreme high figure for the age difference between Mordecai and Esther (50), we come to the minimum possible age for Esther at the time of this story - 63. Using more realistic numbers, she was probably between 85 and 100 years of age.
Now, let’s visualize this beauty pageant. The most beautiful young virgin maidens come before the king. In those days, they liked their women young, so most of the girls would probably be in the range of 16 to 21 years old. Standing in the middle of the group is 85 year old Esther... I suspect that whoever put her in the lineup got beheaded at that point. But, amazingly, she was the one who was picked.
She must have been one hot old lady. I hope my wife looks that good when she’s 85.
THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

So, let’s take a look at ancient relativity - the family relationships, ages, and correspondancies that are recorded in the Bible, to see if the writers were able to keep their “begats” straight.

Young lust

Apparently the Hebrews had no concept of statutory rape or, as they say in slang, jail bait. It is recorded that King Ahaz fathered a child at an age that is certainly unusual, if not downright impossible. Consider the following:

Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. - 2 Kings 16:2

And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Hezeki'ah his son reigned in his stead. - 2 Kings 16:20

In the third year of Hoshe'a son of Elah, king of Israel, Hezeki'ah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. - 2 Kings 18:1,2

So, Ahaz died at age 36. His son Hezekiah, began ruling in his place. Hezekiah was 25 years old at the time. This means that Ahaz must have fathered a child when he was 10 or 11 years old - no need for Viagra here.

But, if you think this was an amazing accomplishment, just look at what comes next.

Lack of respect is a common complaint from parents who have teenagers. But just imagine the situation that Ahaziah’s father found himself in.

He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem; and he departed with no one's regret. They buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahazi'ah his youngest son king in his stead; for the band of men that came with the Arabs to the camp had slain all the older sons. So Ahazi'ah the son of Jeho'ram king of Judah reigned. Ahazi'ah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. - 2 Chronicles 21:20 - 22:2

Applying a little bit of mathematics to this account yields an interesting conclusion. Jehoram died at age 40. He was replaced by his son Ahaziah, who was 42 years old. This means that Ahaziah was two years older than his father.

An even more amazing statement is that Ahaziah was the youngest of Jehoram’s sons. So, some of Jehoram’s sons were even more than two years older than him.

I have to ask: When Jehoram was young, did he have to ask his children for the keys to the chariot?

Most of us have our hands full dealing with just one set of in-laws. Moses, unfortunately, was in the unenviable position of having no less than three fathers in law. Consider the following scriptures:

When they came to their father Reu'el, he said, "How is it that you have come so soon today?" They said, "An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and even drew water for us and watered the flock." He said to his daughters, "And where is he? Why have you left the man? Call him, that he may eat bread." And Moses was content to dwell with the man, and he gave Moses his daughter Zippo'rah. - Ex 2:18-21

Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Mid'ian; - Ex 3:1

Now Heber the Ken'ite had separated from the Ken'ites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far away as the oak in Za-anan'nim, which is near Kedesh. - Judges 4;11

Ruel, Jethro, and Hobab are all credited with the position of being Moses’ father in law. This is especially confusing when you consider that two of the above references were supposedly written by Moses himself. I guess if Moses couldn’t keep them straight, you can’t blame the writer of Judges for getting it wrong, too.

The 5 sons of childless Michal

So far, we have seen child parents, inverse reproduction, and in-laws with split personalities (this last one is not particularly rare, anymore). Our freak show would not be complete without at least one childless mother. So, voila! Here she is:

As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death. - 2 Samuel 6:23 (Youngs)

and the king taketh the two sons of Rizpah daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal daughter of Saul whom she bare to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite, - 2 Samuel 21:8 (Youngs)

What more can I say?

The family tree is still growing

The Bible is well known for its long lists of “begats”. Most bible readers have been bored to tears by the seemingly endless lists of genealogies. But, if you take the time to actually read them, instead of skipping over them, you will find numerous errors. Take for instance the family of that beloved Bible character Arpachshad:

These are the descendants of Shem. When Shem was a hundred years old, he became the father of Arpach'shad two years after the flood... When Arpach'shad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah; - Genesis 11:10-12

So, the line of descent looked like this: Shem, Arpaschad, Shelah. This order is backed up by an identical ordering in Genesis 10:22-24. But, after a few centuries, the family tree seems to have sprouted. Here it is according to Luke:

the son of Serug, the son of Re'u, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Ca-i'nan, the son of Arphax'ad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, - Luke 3:35, 36

Notice that Luke’s chronology is ordered like this: Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah. There is an extra generation recorded in Luke.

You’d think these guys could get together a little bit better. That’s pretty sloppy copying for someone who is infallible.

The early Hebrews were obsessed with keeping their line of descent open, so that it would be possible for the Messiah to come through them. It was a shame and a dishonour to have no children.

They probably shouldn’t have worried so much, because apparently, there was room for just about everyone. When the Bible finally got around to producing a Messiah and recording his lineage, in typical Bible fashion, it went too far. Instead of telling one concise, believable story, it had to tell it twice - both of them different, and mutually exclusive of each other.

In Matthew, chapter one, Jesus’ line of descent is detailed. It begins with Abraham, and traces his lineage down through each successive generation until it reaches Jesus in verse 16:

and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. - Matthew 1:16

Luke chapter 3 gives a parallel account. It traces Jesus ancestry in the opposite order, beginning with Jesus and tracing back all the way to Adam. However, the order is not the only difference from Matthew’s version. Luke notes numerous differences in the line of descent, and attributes Joseph’s parentage as follows:
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, - Luke 3:23

One of many noteworthy discrepancies between these lists is the parenthood of Joseph, alternately attributed to Jacob and Heli.

Now, some persons have tried to explain away this discrepancy by saying that one account gives the lineage of Jesus through his father Joseph, while the other one gives his lineage through his mother, Mary. Unfortunately, this is not possible. The above quotes show clearly that, in both cases, Joseph is named while Mary is ignored.

If this mistake isn’t obvious enough for everyone, we must also deal with another difficulty. Tracing Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph is pointless. According to the Bible, Joseph was not Jesus’ father. He was only the step father. Jesus supposedly descended from Mary and Jehovah, so, those two chapters in the Bible can be scrapped - not only for their errors, but also for their irrelevance.

Have you ever known a family that had so many children they couldn’t keep track of them? Apparently, King David was descended from just such a family.

Jesse was the father of Eli'ab his first-born, Abin'adab the second, Shim'ea the third, Nethan'el the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh; - 1 Chronicles 2:13-15

So, David is clearly listed as the seventh son of Jesse.

And Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, "The LORD has not chosen these." And Samuel said to Jesse, "Are all your sons here?" And he said, "There remains yet the youngest, but behold, he is keeping the sheep." And Samuel said to Jesse, "Send and fetch him; for we will not sit down till he comes here." - 1 Samuel 16:10, 11

Notice that all seven of Jesse’s sons were rejected by Samuel. The eighth son, David, was out with the sheep.

Apparently, someone couldn’t count very well

Belshazzar - The Son I Never Had

In the book of Daniel, a King by the name of Belshazzar is mentioned. Historical records tell us very little about him, except that he was the son of Nabonidus, and carried some regal authority. He plays a fairly large role in the the story of Daniel.

But, the Bible identifies him, not as Nabonidus’ son, but as Nebuchadnezzar’s son:

Belshaz'zar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver which Nebuchadnez'zar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem...
- Daniel 5:2

There are four other references to Belshazzar as being the son of Nebuchadnezzzar (Daniel 5:11, 5:13, 5:18, and 5:22).

In reality, Belshazzar was no relation to Nebuchadnezzar. His father, Nabonidus, ruled four kings after Nebuchadnezzar. So, once again, the Bible messes up on the theory of relativity.
RIGHTEOUSNESS

Throughout history, people have tried to live up to God’s righteous standards, so as to gain his approval. The Bible holds up many shining examples of persons who pleased God. We would do well to imitate them as closely as we are able.

This chapter will answer the question that is on the lips of every person aspiring to God’s approval:
“How many murders can you commit and still be considered a righteous man?”
Or, for those who are differently inclined:
“How many drunken orgies can you have with your children and still be considered faithful?”
The short answers to these questions are:
a) forty two, and
b) two.

The long answers will take a little more time. Consider the following examples:

David

David was a righteous man. God personally chose him to be the King of Israel. He was blessed to guide the nation to its largest dominion in history. The promised Messiah was foretold to come from his line. A thousand years later, in Hebrews 11:32, he was listed along with the other great men of old.

There was no doubt that God approved of David, but what was he really like? Was he more obedient, moral, or upright than anyone else? Let’s take a look.

To start with, David won the hand of his first wife in a rather unusual way.

David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife. - 1 Samuel 18:27

This conjures up a disquieting mental image. Picture David, or one of his attendants slicing the foreskins off of 200 dead bodies. Better yet, imagine yourself as the person assigned by David to do this job. All of a sudden, cleaning tables at Burger King doesn’t look like such a bad job.

David’s new wife must have been a little bit of a disappointment to him, because, before long she was marked down:

Then David sent messengers to Ish-bo'sheth Saul's son, saying, "Give me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed at the price of a hundred foreskins of the Philistines." - 2 Samuel 3:14

Ahh, the Good old days, when even the king’s daughter could be obtained for only a handful of foreskins. With inflation rates today, you practically need a wheelbarrow full to get anyone decent. My wife wouldn’t even look at foreskins. I had to buy a Firebird to get her.

For those of you who are keeping count, notice that the first version stated that the foreskins of 200 Philistines were involved. The second version mentions only 100 foreskins. Now any good Biblical appologist worth his salt can dispose of this error very easily. All one has to do is argue that the Philistines had only one penis for every two men.

Now, I think we should pause for a moment, and picture the scene as David presents the foreskins to Saul. David would enter into the presence of King Saul and set a couple buckets of foreskins in front of him. They would be bloody, slimey, and probably smelly. Would Saul count them? After all, maybe David loaded a bucket with fingers and toes, putting only a thin layer of foreskins on top. And what if there were only 195 foreskins? Would Saul have withheld his daughter? To tell you the truth, I think the sight of all those foreskins would me think twice about giving my daughter to this guy.

Seriously, although this story is gruesome, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a warrior killing his enemies. I merely slipped it in because it’s one hell of a story, and I wanted to highlight the foreskin discrepancy.

Now, let’s get back to David’s misdeeds. We have already made the point that God approved of David and considered him to be a righteous man. Was he really righteous?

Well, 2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12 tell the story of David and Bath Sheba. Apparently, David saw this married woman bathing (does her name seem a little too coincidental?) and became enraptured with her. He sent for her and got her pregnant. When he was unable to cover up the pregnancy, he arranged for her husband to be killed, and David took her for his own wife. God then penalized David by killing the son that was born to Bath Sheba. So, David committed adultery and murder.

Then, in 2 Chronicles chapter 21, we are told the story of David and the census. In this tale, David commits the terrible sin of counting the Israelites. This doesn’t seem too bad to me, but God didn’t see it that way. He was so incensed at David that he murdered 70,000 innocent Israelites as punishment. That must have been a pretty bad sin.

Still, despite these flaws, God saw fit to declare David righteous.

Lot

Now, if there ever was a righteous, upright man, it was Lot. In fact, he was so noticeably righteous that of all the people living in Sodom, he was the only one that was not worthy of the death penalty. God singled him out as deserving of recognition, and sent two angels to visit him with a warning.

Our story is recorded in Genesis 19: Two angels drop in on Lot, and he prevails upon them to spend the night in his house. After Lot and his guests enjoy a good meal, the local men of the city come calling. They would like to have a little slap and tickle with the visitors. Here is the opening account:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." - Genesis 19:4,5

For a book that is filled to the brim with murder, mayhem, and misconduct, told in intricate detail, every now and then it seems to become shy about certain sensitive subjects. When the the above-quoted scripture uses the word “know”, it is not referring to a verbal bonding session. Just so that there is no doubt about what is intended, here is the subtle wording as found in the New World Translation:

And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.” - Genesis 19:5

You’ll have to admit that it’s not very often you hear that phrase upon answering a knock at the door.

Now, I’m having a little trouble with the credibility of this story. First of all, it seems a little odd to me that every male in the city, both young and old, would be 1) homosexual, and 2) rapists. I mean, where did the children come from if there were no straight males (the scripture says there were young ones), and why would they need to rape strangers, when there were plenty of willing males in their midst?

Also, this must have been a pretty small city if half of the population could knock on Lot’s door. Here’s another question: if all of the males were gay, what about the females? Were they all lesbian, or just frustrated?

Undoubtedly, this account goes a long way toward explaining the general intollerance, stereotyping, and homophobia found among fundamentalists today.

So, what’s righteous Lot to do? Well, he does what any courageous role model would do. He offers his virgin daughters to the crowd.

Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." - Genesis 19:6-8

Lot had several options in this case. He could stand stand up to them, like a man; he could allow these superhuman, powerful angels to defend themselves (which they eventually did); or, he could selflessly offer himself in place of his daughters. Instead, he offered his daughters to the mob for them to rape.

What kind of a sick father would do something like this? Well, he was the kind of person who would do the following:

Now Lot went up out of Zo'ar, and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwell in Zo'ar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters. And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. - Genesis 19:30-36

Let’s move this story into the twentieth century: imagine explaining to your wife that you have just had sex with, and impregnated, your daughter. Assuming that she doesn’t leave, injure, or kill you and/or press criminal charges, the following day you go back and tell her that you did it again with your other daughter - but it’s OK, because you were totally stone drunk at the time.

For a righteous man, Lot appeared to have a few bad qualities. None of this seemed to affect God’s opinion of him, though. In 2 Peter 2:7, the Bible refers to “righteous Lot” who was “greatly distressed at the licentiousness of the wicked”.

God probably should have let him go with the rest of Sodom. On the other hand, Lot did possess the remarkable ability to perform sexually while totally inebriated. So, he wasn’t all bad.

Elisha

I would like to take you to a hypothetical situation.

Imagine that a substitute teacher is responsible for a fifth grade class. During the course of the morning, he finds it necessary to visit the office. On his way back, he hears noise coming from his classroom. Without his presence, the students have started misbehaving. When he gets to the class, he sees that students are walking around the room, talking and laughing with each other, and throwing paper airplanes. When they notice that he has returned, some of the bolder ones start to insult him. They call him names and everyone has a laugh at his expense.

Obviously, the teacher has lost control of the class. So, to set matters right, he calmly closes the door, locks it, and goes to his desk. He opens the drawer and takes out a hunting knife. Reaching for the student in the first row, he cleanly slits her throat and flops her back into her seat. The next student doubles over in pain after being stabbed in the stomach. A boy running for the door is caught and stabbed several times in the back. Eventually, the teacher catches them all and leaves the room filled with blood and carnage.

He then walks out, cleans up, and reports back to the office for his next assignment. The following day, the local newspaper describes the scene in the classroom and publishes an editorial defending and justifying the teacher’s actions.

I’m sure you will agree that this story is not only sick and depraved, but it is also unfathomable that society would condone the actions of this psycho.

Now, let’s tell another story.

Elisha was an early prophet of God. He was used by God on several occasions, and was the natural successor to the prophet Elijah. He was an authority figure appointed by God himself. One day, some small boys began to heckle him. Here is what he did:

He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and thence he returned to Sama'ria. - 2 Kings 2:23-25

Forty two young children were savagely murdered because they insulted a bald man. The story is recorded in our moral guidebook, the Bible. Elisha was a righteous man, one that we would do well to imitate.

Could someone please explain the difference between a criminally insane mass murderer and a prophet of God? I can’t seem to see any difference.

The next time that I read about a child being mauled by a pit bull, I will assume that the child had it coming.

Samson
Another man that found favor in God’s eyes was Samson.

First, let’s consider the evidence of God’s approval:
Samson was the Judge of Israel for 20 years. (Judges 15:20) His rule was successful, so based on the ancient tradition of assuming that successful rulership meant God’s approval, Samson was favored by God.
Samson’s birth was announced by an angel prior to his conception. This is surely an indication that God was sending Samson to Israel for a special purpose. In fact, the Angel specified that Samson would “deliver Israel”, almost like an early version of the Messiah. (Judges 13:5)
The angel who announced Samson’s birth also said that he would be a Nazarite. A Nazarite was a particular classification of Israelite that had special religious priviledges. (Judges 13:7)
He was famous for his spectacular strength. It is implied that this strength was miraculously provided by God himself, giving further evidence of God’s approval.

So, Samson was approved by God. But, was he a good guy? Take a look.

Judges chapter 14 tells a rather disturbing story. Samson enters into a bet with some local men. He bets them that they cannot give the correct answer to a riddle. The stakes are 30 changes of clothing. So, Samson asks the riddle and the men are stumped. They use his wife to pressure Samson into revealing the answer. Like a moron, he tells her the answer, and the men win the bet. To pay his debt, he goes into town, kills 30 innocent men, and steals their clothing. Now, you can call Samson a murderer and a thief, but at least he never reneges on a bet.

Later on, he goes to Gaza and spends the night with a prostitute. (Judges 16:1,2) He also appears to have boinked Delilah, although the Bible is not totally clear on this. So, you can now add fornication to the list. His marital status is unclear at this point, so he may have also committed adultery.

He killed 1,000 Phillistines with the jawbone of an ass, and, towards the end of his life, he killed another 3,000 Phillistine men and women who were having a celebration. Since these were his enemies, I’m not sure if these 4,000 killings are considered a bad thing.

Finally, in Judges, chapter 15, the story of Samson and the foxes is related. In this story, Samson gets revenge on the Phillistines by igniting 300 live foxes and setting them loose in the Phillistine’s crops. You can now add animal cruelty to his character sketch.

Throughout the story of Samson, numerous indications of his stupidity are recorded. He was repeatedly tricked by people who used the most transparent of ruses on him, and his method of lighting fires was ridiculous in the extreme.

Yet, despite his limited mental capacity, and his commission of murder, theft, fornication, and cruelty to animals, God still approved of him.

A Final Word
The Bible abounds with persons held up as examples of righteousness. If these men made the cut, it makes you wonder about those whom the Bible classifies as wicked. By these standards, most of the persons inhabiting our penal system could be prophets.

THE HARD WAY TO START A FIRE

One of the funniest stories in the Bible is recorded in Judges, chapter 15. It deals with that ancient strongman, Samson. Here is how it goes:

Samson is in a bad mood. The Philistines have outsmarted him by correctly answering a riddle that he thought was impossible. So he goes to live with his father. When he comes back to visit his wife, it turns out that that his father in law, thinking that Samson had left for good, has given his wife to someone else. The father in law tries to make up for the mistake by offering his wife’s younger sister in her place. Samson declines the offer and decides that he will take his revenge by burning the Philistine’s crops. After the fire, the Philistines become rather peeved with everyone involved, so to end the matter, they burn Samson’s ex-wife and her father. This infuriates Samson even more, so he goes forth smiting the Philistines in a great slaughter.

This entire soap opera takes only nine verses.

“What is so funny about this story?”, you rightly ask. Well, it has to do with how Samson went about starting the crops on fire.

If you wanted to start this fire, how would you do it? I would probably get a few torches, and maybe a few friends, wait for a dry night when the wind was right, and then go on a fire lighting escapade. Dry straw burns very easily, so it wouldn’t take much to get a roaring fire going. If there were any sentries, don’t worry, Samson is a powerful person, he could bop them on the head, and away you go.

It sounds like a fairly simple procedure, but that’s not how Samson does it.

“And Samson said to them, ‘This time I shall be blameless in regard to the Philistines, when I do them mischief.’ So Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches; and he turned them tail to tail and put a torch between each pair of tails. And when he had set fire to the torches, he let the foxes go into the standing grain of the Philistines, and burned up the shocks and the standing grain, as well as the olive orchards.“ - Judges 15:3-5 (RSV)

At first blush, this story seems improbable, but when you get down to determining the actual logistics required, it takes a leap from the merely unlikely into the supremely ridiculous. Let’s begin.

Where do you get 300 foxes?
Like most wild animals, foxes are wary when it comes to humans. You can’t issue a fox call and expect droves of them to come running.

They generally live in pairs. Once a year, a typical fox family will expand from the two adults, adding from one to ten cubs. These cubs remain at home for about five weeks before leaving to make their own way. It is likely that Samson would have found his foxes in dens of two. The extended families are in existence for only a short time, and he would have had little use for baby foxes, anyway.

In the United States, the fox population density is approximately 0.39 foxes per square mile. In some areas, such as England, the density is higher. Although I was not able to get this figure for ancient Palestine, I think it would be safe to say that its fox density would be no higher than the U.S., due to the heat and poor supply of food in the Middle East.

This means that in order to gather three hundred foxes, Samson would have to depopulate an area of at least 769 square miles, or 27.7 miles by 27.7 miles. He would need to capture 150 dens in this area. If the dens were evenly spaced, there would be one den on every fifth section of land. (Out West, we measure our land in units of one square mile, called sections.)

How long would this take?
Well, in order to simply travel across this grid, visiting each den in the most efficient manner, Samson would need to walk 443 miles. According to the standard measurements of Bible times, this would take 22 days.

But, it would not be that easy. The above calculation assumes that he knows exactly where every den is located, and could go directly to it. It assumes that every den is optimally placed, so that travel could be minimized. It ignores the fact that trapping foxes is a two step process - setting the trap, then checking back on it later. It also would require him to pick up each pair of foxes and take them along to the next den, so that by the time he was done, he would be leading a battalion of 300 animals. And, of course, it assumes that he has 300 traps and that every trap catches a fox every time.

So, it is not simply a matter of going out and scooping a bunch of foxes. The most efficient method to cover this territory would be as follows:

Samson establishes a base camp, where he builds cages. He then goes on a two day expedition, setting his traps over a 40 mile area. (It would take two days to reach the furthest parts of this territory and return). He would then double back over his steps, emptying the traps and taking the foxes back to the base camp. This is not without difficulty, since wild animals are known to gnaw off their foot in order to get out of a trap, and a lame, dead or absent fox is no good to Samson. We will ignore this minor problem.

Every two days he would be back at his cages, where he could feed and water his foxes, drop off the new ones, and set out for the next expedition. He would need to make eleven expeditions of this nature, bringing the total time spent to 44 days, assuming that every trap caught a fox every time, and none escaped or died. We are also going to ignore the time spent gathering food for all the animals that are kept in captivity, the building of the cages, the difficulty in walking up to 20 miles with as many as 27 live foxes in his care, and the gathering of food for himself.

Realistically, this process would probably take three or four months, but we will give the Bible the benefit of every doubt, and pencil in six weeks.

So much for the easy part of the job. The next task is really hard.

Binding the Foxes
The scripture goes on to say that after gathering the foxes, he then “turned them tail to tail and put a torch between each pair of tails”. This isn’t very descriptive, so we’re going to have to use our imaginations a bit.

In order to attach a torch to the tails of a pair of foxes, it would be necessary to line up the foxes side by side and tie the tails together. Then the torch could be tied to the bound pair of tails. You could not light the torch until all foxes were bound, otherwise, the fire would be out of control, before you could complete the process. You would be discovered too soon.

This is easier said than done. Most animals, even domestic ones, do not like to have their tails handled. Tying two foxes together by their tails would undoubtedly cause the pair to squeal and thrash about, trying to free themselves by escaping, gnawing their tails, or killing their partner.

Picture in your mind a pair of frantic, squealing, thrashing, biting animals. Now, set them to one side, and do the next pair and the next. Could you imagine the commotion that would be going on by the time he neared the end, with 150 pairs of these foxes?

Now, he must go back and catch the first pair, assuming that they are both still alive, and light the torch. The pair could then be released into the fields.

I think you get the picture. Keep in mind, that in order for this prank of Samson’s to work, stealth would have to be of the essence. If the Philistines caught wind of what he was doing, it would all be over, so it must be done with no one noticing.

I have actually ignored yet another flaw in this story. Under my fox gathering scenario, in order to minimize travel time, Samson would have built his pens in the center of the territory where he would gather the foxes. He would then have to transport all 300 live foxes to an area where no one would have seen his activities. This would be an absolute minimum of 13.8 miles.

The Conclusion
The rest of the story pretty much writes itself. After the foxes are released, they run, panic stricken, through the fields of the Philistines. Some of the foxes, undoubtedly, would have caught fire, turning into running, screaming, live torches. In the end, all of the foxes would have died. Either they would have burned in the fire or starved to death, since it would be pretty hard to sneak up on food with another fox tied to them. Where is the SPCA when you need them?

With regard to Samson, it is clear that he did not have a mental capacity to match his formidable physical strength.

Realistically though, there is no way that this story could have happened. Only an idiot would spend two months of hard work executing a plan that could be accomplished in one night. As well, we have underestimated the time required; overlooked multiple logistical difficulties in the gathering, storing, and transporting of the foxes; assumed that the binding and lighting of the foxes is actually possible; and most of all, believed that the Philistines would not notice 300 squealing, thrashing, flaming foxes that had been systematically built up in a huge cage complex.

So, the next time you ask someone “Got a light?”, think twice about what they may go through to supply it.
THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES

“And me, I’m walking down memory lane,
without a ding-dong thing on my mind.” - Gonzo the Great

I have opened this chapter with a quotation from that memorable Muppet character, Gonzo the Great. The Bible has a lot in common with the Muppets. Both are humorous, entertaining, and by no means capable of being taken seriously.

This chapter deals with some memorable memory lapses. Have you ever experienced a memory lapse? Maybe, you have seen an actor on TV that looked familiar, but could not remember where you had seen him. Or maybe you are introduced to a room full of people, and, by the time you are working your way around the room for the second time, some of the names had slipped away.

If you have experienced this, don’t worry. You are in good company - the best, in fact. The Bible contains several examples of where Bible characters and even God himself had memory lapses.

The Name Game
God had a very high opinion of Jacob. He liked Jacob so much, that He decided to make Jacob the founder of an entire nation. Unfortunately, you can’t call a country “Jacob”. All the other countries would laugh at it. So, God changed his name to “Israel”. That way the maps wouldn’t have to change. I suppose that God would have the same problem with me, if he wanted me to found a nation. You couldn’t very well have a country named “Fred”.

At any rate, the point here is that God changed Jacob’s name to Israel:

“Then he said, ‘Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.’ Then Jacob asked him, ‘Tell me, I pray, your name.’ But he said, ‘Why is it that you ask my name?’ And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the name of the place Peni'el, saying, ‘For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.’ - Genesis 32:28-30

So, from that point on, Jacob would be called Israel. Unfortunately, this name change didn’t seem to take, because the Bible, and all his friends, still called him Jacob. So, God had to change his name again:

“God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. And God said to him, ‘Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.’ So his name was called Israel.” - Genesis 35:9,10

So, God changed his name for the second time. You may also notice that this is at least the third time that he received a blessing. This was an ancient form of “getting lucky.”

But, once again, the name change didn’t seem to take. Possibly, God had neglected some of the paper work. The Bible continued to call him Jacob:

“And God spoke to Israel in visions of the night, and said, ‘Jacob, Jacob.’ And he said, ‘Here am I.’” - Genesis 46:2

You will notice that God’s words are here placed in quotation marks, indicating that these were his exact words. I can understand Jacob’s wife forgetting his new name on occasion, but you would think that God, being infallible and all, would get this right sooner or later. Maybe he needed to change Jacob’s name a third time.

There is something else interesting about the above quotation. Notice that the Bible writer got the name right, but God didn’t.

Davey and Goliath
It’s not surprising that God found it necessary to replace King Saul. Apparently his mind was shot. For example, let’s take a look at the events surrounding the killing of Goliath. The story begins with Saul looking for an assistant, someone who was a good killer and could also play a musical instrument:

“So Saul said to his servants, ‘Provide for me a man who can play well, and bring him to me.’ One of the young men answered, ‘Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence; and the LORD is with him.’ Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse, and said, ‘Send me David your son, who is with the sheep.’ And Jesse took an ass laden with bread, and a skin of wine and a kid, and sent them by David his son to Saul. And David came to Saul, and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, ‘Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight.’" - 1 Samuel 16:17-22

So, here we establish a few facts:
1. Saul and his servants knew of David. Saul knew David well enough to come to love him greatly.
2. Both Saul and his servants knew that David was the son of Jesse. Saul sent at least two messages to Jesse.
3. David knew his way around armor. He was described as a “man of war”, and a “man of valor”, and he became Saul’s armor bearer.

At this point, Saul’s memory starts to fade, as you can see in the following exchange:

“And Saul said to David, ‘You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth, and he has been a man of war from his youth.’" - 1 Samuel 17:33

So, here Saul seemed to forget that David was a valiant man of war. There must be something in the water, because, a few verses later, David’s memory starts to go, too.

“Then Saul clothed David with his armor; he put a helmet of bronze on his head, and clothed him with a coat of mail. And David girded his sword over his armor, and he tried in vain to go, for he was not used to them. Then David said to Saul, ‘I cannot go with these; for I am not used to them.’ And David put them off.” - 1 Samuel 17:38, 39

Now David appears to have forgotten how to use armor, even though he is a valiant man of war, and has had the job of handling Saul’s armor. The comedy reaches its climax after David returns from killing Goliath.

“And the Israelites came back from chasing the Philistines, and they plundered their camp. And David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent. When Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the commander of the army, ‘Abner, whose son is this youth?’ And Abner said, ‘As your soul lives, O king, I cannot tell.’ And the king said, ‘Inquire whose son the stripling is.’" - 1 Samuel 17:53-56

By this time, Saul is in serious need of some medical help. Earlier in the day, he loved David greatly. Now he doesn’t even know David’s name. He has also forgotten the name of David’s father, even though he has sent messages to Jesse on at least two occasions. Unfortunately, the condition appears to be contagious. Saul’s servants have also forgotten David’s identity.

I could just picture the scene when David returned from the battle:
Saul: “What did you say your name was, boy?”
David: “It’s David. Don’t you remember? I work for you.”
Saul: “David?”
David: “Yes, we talked, like, 15 minutes ago. You gave me your armor.”
Saul: “David? Sorry doesn’t ring a bell.”

But, then again, it seems that just about everyone forgot about David. In 2 Samuel, a passing reference is made to Goliath, and this time his death is attributed to Elhanan.

“And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elha'nan the son of Ja'areor'egim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.” - 2 Samuel 21:19

So, history attributed the slaying of Goliath to someone else entirely. The only way to reconcile this discrepancy would be to postulate the existence of some other Goliath. Maybe, there were two people named Goliath the Gittite of Gath who were giants and had spears like weaver’s beams and were killed in battle by Israelites. That’s not too hard to believe, is it? Actually, it’s easier to believe than what comes next.

I Said What?
In the book of Jeremiah, God has another memory lapse:

“Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.” - Jeremiah 7:26, 27

Excuse me, God, but do you remember that book you wrote? You know, the one with all the killing. Well, it was pretty much full of sacrifices and burnt offerings. In fact, the carnage began with the sacrifice of Abel’s sheep, just after the Garden of Eden business. Solomon killed on a spectacular scale, murdering 142,000 animals during one festival alone. Are we to believe that this is the first you have heard of it?

Apparently, God forgot that he had indeed ordered exactly what he denied in Jeremiah. In the above reference, God said that he did not speak to the Israelites concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices when he brought them out of Egypt. Well, that just isn’t true. He did speak to them on that occasion as recorded in Dueteronomy:

“You shall be careful to do all the statutes and the ordinances which I set before you this day. These are the statutes and ordinances which you shall be careful to do in the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, all the days that you live upon the earth.” - Dueteronomy 11:32 - 21:1.

“But the holy things which are due from you, and your votive offerings, you shall take, and you shall go to the place which the LORD will choose, and offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, on the altar of the LORD your God; the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out on the altar of the LORD your God, but the flesh you may eat.” - Dueteronomy 12:26,27

So, God has blatantly denied doing something that his inspired word, written by himself, specifically recorded.

We will now use this situation to prove that God is truly miraculous. Here we are faced with a quandary and we must make a choice. The first option is that God may be mistaken, but that is not possible. The second option is that God is not mistaken, whereby he would be deliberately lying. Unfortunately, that is not possible, either. Since the only two possible options are both impossible, then we have just witnessed a miracle. Remember, you saw it here first. Can I be nominated for sainthood because of this?
THE FLOOD

One of the more colorful stories in the Bible is the story of the flood. It is a story that appeals to the imagination. It contains all the elements of a good children’s story - animals, crime and punishment, sweeping events that captivate the reader’s interest, and a happy ending. In fact, children’s literature is precisely where the flood story should end up, placed along side Mother Goose and Cinderella.

There are many reasons why the flood story as told by the Bible could never have happened. For instance, the amount of water required to cover the highest mountains would be astronomical. It is physically impossible for the atmosphere to absorb that much water, and drop it as rain. Even if it could be done, five miles of water hovering over the heads of the pre-deluge earth would have created atmospheric pressure so intense that they would have been as flat as pancakes, not to mention the fact that they would be in complete darkness due to the blocking of light from the sun. Core samples of arctic ice show no evidence of either a global flood or a pre-flood tropical climate. Then there is the fact that several civilizations, such as the Egyptian and the Chinese, have written histories that predate the flood. The pyramids were built about two hundred years before the flood, and show no water damage. And, of course, the zoological difficulties are huge. How could fresh water and salt water fish survive in a common pool? And, did Noah drop off kangaroos in Australia on his way to Ararat?

The list of arguments against the literal interpretation of the flood account is so long that it would be tiresome to go through it all. Besides, others have already done this better than I can. Most people don’t take it seriously, anyway.

I would like to take a completely different approach. I will assume that the flood story is literally true in all of its details, and follow the logic through to its inevitable conclusion. Particularly, I am concerned with its motivation. To begin, a short recap of the events is in order.

The Story of the Flood
After the creation of the human race, things went along on their merry way for a long time. If you follow the list of who begat whom, and how long each of them lived, you come to the conclusion that Adam was created around 4000 BC.

But, after about a millennium and a half, trouble started to brew. Some angels became inflamed with lust for human women and took on human form. They mated with humans, forming a race of huge bullies. Things got so bad that God decided that he would wipe out all life from the earth and start over again.

It turns out that in all the earth, there was only one good man. So, God told this man, Noah, to build a huge boat that would house samples of every form of non-water based life.

Then, after working for 100 years, God loaded Noah, his family, and all the animals onto the ark, and then it started to rain. By this time, it was around the year 2400 BC.
It rained for 40 days and nights, during which time, enough water fell to cover even the highest mountains.

When the earth was wiped clean, the waters receded, and Noah let his family and the animals out of the ark to begin repopulating the planet.

The Problem
As I mentioned earlier, this is a story that appeals to persons on a childish level. Unfortunately, there are persons who believe that it is literally true in its every detail. This belief forces these persons into a very distasteful position, as we will now see.

The remainder of this essay is intended for a mature audience, so Christians may want to skip to the next one.

The initial act that started the chain of events, is described by the following bible verses:

“Now it came about that when men started to grow in numbers on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, the sons of the true God began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely all whom they chose.” - Genesis 6:1,2 (NWT)

Within the next three verses, things deteriorated so much that the only reasonable act for a loving God would be to murder all life. It seems a little odd to me that the angels who started all of this escaped back to heaven, but the humans, who were only secondary to the story, and the animals, who didn’t know what the hell was going on, were executed.

The key point here, is that the event that kicked off the flood was the desire of angels to mate with humans.

In other words, the angels got horny. Now, this has some interesting implications. From this story, and a few other Bible references, we can piece together an interesting picture of the nature of heaven.

The sex drive in humans and animals is caused by chemicals that are produced in the body. In fact, a person’s sex drive can be eliminated or changed through surgery and hormone therapy. The point of the matter is that, without these chemicals, there is no sex drive.

At this point, we must pause a moment to consider the nature of angels. According to the Bible, angels are direct creations of God. They do not reproduce. As well, they do not have the inherited original sin of Adam and Eve to taint them. They are perfect. This does not mean that they are incapable of sin. It merely means that they are incapable of accidental sin. If an angel sins, it is because he meant it. It also means that if an angel feels sexual desire, it must have been placed there by his creator.

In order for an angel to become inflamed with lust for a human woman, it would be necessary for the angel to have a sex drive of some sort. If they were completely neuter in every way, they would find human women about as attractive as we find rocks. For this story to function, God must have created angels with sex drives.

Conclusion # 1: Angels are created with a sex drive.

Now that we have established this unusual fact, let’s continue. Notice that the Bible says that the angels found human women attractive, and they took on the bodies of men. Also, notice that it does not say that any of them found human men attractive, and none of them took on the bodies of women. This leads us inescapably to our next conclusion.

Conclusion # 2: All angels are men.

Some of you may be tempted to jump ahead of me, but let’s go slow, and develop this carefully. Our next area of inquiry is regarding the possibility of angelic reproduction.

Jesus gives us some insight into the nature of angelic interrelationships:

“For in the resurrection, neither do men marry, nor are women given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven.” - Matthew 22:30 (NWT)

In addition to this direct statement, we note that there is no reference anywhere in the Bible to female angels, angelic marriage, or angelic reproduction of any sort. This leads us to our next conclusion:

Conclusion # 3: Angels have no natural outlet for their sexual urges.

Finally, I must add some information regarding the quantities of angels.

The book of Daniel makes reference to “ten thousand times ten thousand” standing before God. A quick multiplication shows that there are one hundred million angels present in this scene, and there may be others as well.

Also, angels have been in existence for a long time. The Bible says that God rested after creating Adam and Eve, so any angels that exist must have been created before them; therefore, angels are ancient.

Conclusion # 4: There are lots and lots of angels and they have a lot of time
on their hands

Now, for the slower ones among us, who have not yet figured out what I am getting at, let’s put all four conclusions together, and finish this off:
Angels are created with a sex drive
All angels are men
Angels have no natural outlet for their sexual urges
There are lots and lots of angels, with lots and lots of time

With this logic in mind, we can deduce that heaven must be like a huge prison shower room. I suppose that there are some people who have always had this concept of heaven, or at least hoped for it, but you will have to admit that this is not the mainstream viewpoint. If it were, the Cistine Chapel would be restricted to adults only.

I think it’s safe to say that this exercise illustrates just how ridiculous is the story of the flood. These conclusions, although absurd, are the natural outgrowth of the story, itself. In order for the events of the flood to get off the ground, this must be true.

So, choose for yourself: either heaven is a massive San Francisco bath house, or the story of the flood is just another yarn.

DAVID AND THE CENSUS

The story of David and the Census is one of the most educational of all Bible stories. It reveals so much to us of God’s qualities of love, justice, and wisdom, not to mention demonstrating the infallible accuracy of his inerrant word of truth.

The story begins with King David taking a census. Now, taking a census is not a particularly unusual thing for a ruler to do. In fact, there are occasions when God himself commanded that a census be taken. (Ex. 30:12). As well, the Bible often takes pride in reeling off lists of how many members belonged to each tribe at various parts of the Israelite history. These must have been acquired by a census.

But, apparently, there was a time when taking a census was taboo, and poor King David made a mistake. This story is recorded for us in 1 Chronicles 21.

As the story goes, Satan tempts David to take a census. After the census has been performed, God finds it necessary to punish David. And, what could possibly be a more reasonable punishment for taking a census, than to go on a killing rampage. Jehovah sends his angel to go forth, smiting innocent people with a pestilence. That should teach David a lesson.

In the end, 70,000 persons are killed, before Jehovah decides that David has finally had enough. After smiting the 70,000, just as his angel was about to destroy Jerusalem, Jehovah “saw and he repented of the evil”, and stopped the slaughter. How benevolent of him.

Interestingly, there is a parallel account in 2 Samuel chapter 24. I love parallel accounts because they allow comparisons to show the infallibility of God’s word.

· In the 2 Samuel account, it is not Satan who tempts David to take the census, it is Jehovah. Talk about a Freudian slip. This is a bit of a problem. In addition to being an apparent contradiction, it raises some questions. Could Jehovah and Satan be the same person? And, if so, does this make them a quadinity?
· The two accounts differ in the number of Israelites counted. One account puts the number of warriors in Israel and Judah at 1.57 million (excluding Levi and Benjamin), the other at 1.3 million.
· In 2 Samuel, the selling price of the threshing floor was 50 shekels of silver. In 1 Chronicles, it was a whopping 600 shekels of gold. A shekel is 11.4 grams, so, in today’s dollars, David paid either $110 or $77,000 for the threshing floor and animals. That’s a variance between the two accounts of 70,000%.
· In 2 Samuel, David himself offered the burnt offerings. In 2 Chronicles, David did not offer the sacrifices. He would not go before the alter because “he was afraid of the sword of the angel of the LORD.” I wonder why.

As well, this account reveals some of the surpassing qualities of the God of love:
· His actions are evil. 1 Chron 21:15 says so.
· He is rash. He acted before he saw the consequences. 2 Sam 24:16 makes this even clearer, by saying that “the LORD repented of the evil”.
· He can, and has, sinned. Why else would he need to repent?
· What kind of a maniac would punish a person by killing innocent strangers?
· Doesn’t the murder of 70,000 people seem a little extreme for a minor infraction?
· What kind of bloody-mindedness makes a person tempt someone to commit a sin, then punish him harshly for it? It seems like he wanted to punish David all along, and just needed an excuse. If nothing else, this is entrapment.

WHAT LIKELY HAPPENED
Assuming that this story has any basis in fact whatsoever, here is a more reasonable take on what happened:

An epidemic hits Israel. It probably has something to do with the fact that the cutting edge of Israelite sanitation technology is to take a stick with you when you squat, so that you can cover your waste. For a population of at least 5 million people, that technique wears thin pretty fast, but I digress.

A lot of people die before the epidemic finally wears down. Afterwards, the priests need to come up with an explanation for why it happened. They look for a recent event. A census has recently been taken; there must be a connection. So, they use this as an object lesson to reinforce their own power - the lesson being that disobedience to God, and his priests, even in small matters, is nothing to be messed with.

SATAN
I’d like to take a moment and give Satan a blast.

Let’s give God the benefit of the doubt for a minute, and assume that his involvement in the tempting was a typo. This means that, once again, Satan is up to his old tricks. I’m really getting fed up with this guy. Not only does his prank cost 70,000 people their lives, but now he’s spray painting his symbol all over the trash cans in my alley. Then, there’s that business with Eve...

Seriously, though, I believe that the switching of Jehovah and Satan in this account is more significant than it appears. As we know now, the concepts of God and Satan developed gradually. At the early point in the history of Israel when Samuel was written, God was responsible for everything - both good and evil. By the time Chronicles was written, the evil attributes had been split off into a new character, an embodiment of evil that was adopted from the Persians - Satan.

This timing difference also explains the difference in who performed the sacrifices. In the older account, David offered the sacrifices himself. By the time Chronicles was written, that function had been taken over by the Levites, so it was not acceptable for David to do the job.

WHAT’S SO BAD ABOUT A CENSUS, ANYWAY?
The Bible records many occasions where a census was taken. Here are a few examples:
· 2 Chron 2:17,18 - Solomon conducts a census.
· 2 Chron 25:5 - King Amaziah mustered and counted all men 20 years of age and older.
· 2 Chron 26:11-13 - King Uzziah counted soldiers.
· Ezra 2:64, 65 - The returnees from Babylon are numbered. Even the horses, camels, mules, and asses are counted.
· Nehemiah 7 - Jews are numbered as they return to their villages.
· The Israelites were divided and governed in groups of 10, 100, and 1000. This would not be possible without a census. (1 Chron 13:1)
· The count of the Israelites by tribe was given at numerous times throughout their history (see the first 10 chapters of Chronicles and Numbers)
· God commanded Moses to take a census (Numbers 4:1,2).
· God gave Moses instructions on how to take a census (Ex 30:12).

Best of all, David himself conducts another census. In 1 Chron 23:2,3, the Bible mentions that David counted the Levites after he had become an old man.

So, why did God make such a stink over David’s original census? Well, an obscure reference in Exodus 30:12 gives the only clue. God instructs Moses: “When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, that there may be no plague among them when you number them.”

This belief was based on an ancient superstition that it was bad luck to count people. A variation of this superstition persists right up to the present day. Some people believe that if you count a person’s teeth, that person will die.

In spite of the superstitions, however, it is impossible to govern reasonably without knowing the population. So, to appease God, it was necessary to perform a sacrifice. If every person gave a sacrifice when they were counted, it would amount to a huge amount of carnage every time there was a census.

So, is it possible that the issue in this story was the failure to make a sacrifice? No, 1 Chron 21:2-4 indicates that it was not the sacrifice that was the issue, but rather the count itself. In this scripture, Joab begs David not to take the census. If a census was OK, providing that a sacrifice was given, it would make sense that Joab would have simply reminded David to make the necessary sacrifice. As well, in verse 5, Joab skips counting the tribes of Levi and Benjamin because “the King’s command was abhorrent to Joab”, again indicating that it was the census itself, not the lack of a sacrifice that was the problem.

So, we will likely never know exactly what pissed Jehovah off in this case, but it was a bad time to be an Israelite.

BIBLE JUSTICE

Most Christians consider the Bible to be the last word when it comes to justice. Concepts such as “an eye for an eye” are liberally (small “L”) quoted when advocating capital punishment for criminals. And, of course, whenever a person wants to speak out against abortion or homosexuality, there is no better source to quote than the old testament. The Bible has much to say about justice and morals.

However, this viewpoint is narrow, to say the least. The Bible says many things about justice that are not so well quoted, and it omits a shocking list of crimes entirely. For those who advocate capital punishment on the basis of the Bible’s opinion, it would be useful to take a systematic look at the complete system of Biblical Justice. After all, if capital punishment is advisable simply because the Bible says so, and homosexuality or abortion is wrong simply because the Bible says so, then all of the Bible’s other statements must be equally admirable and usable in today’s world. You can judge for yourself if you would like to see the Bible’s judicial system implemented today.

Section I: What things are illegal

The ten commandments (first version) are generally regarded as being the definitive moral and legal code. As they are enumerated in Genesis chapter 20, these commandments are the most well known of the Bible’s criminal prohibitions. This simple legal code represents pretty good work. It outlaws your basic legal and moral crimes, such as murder, theft, adultery, lying, and so on. You can’t really argue with the ten commandments, although you could consider them simplistic. Most well brought up children could compile a decalogue of similar quality.

Unfortunately, the ten commandments are not very consistent. As you may recall, God wrote the commandments on stones, and Moses brought them down to the people. After he descended from the mountain, Moses saw that the people were making images, and he became so incensed that he broke the commandments. So, he went back up to the mountain and got a second copy. The new list is recorded in Genesis chapter 34. The problem, here, is that the new commandments are different from the old ones. The new set deals primarily with religious observances. In fact, there are only three commandments in common between the two sets. So, the ten commandments really should be renamed “the seventeen commandments”.

But, the ten commandments are not the only restrictions that God gave to the Hebrews. He also passed down a complex system of prohibitions that covered everything from sexual practices to diet, with a particular focus on religious observance. The vast majority of these laws are not taken seriously by anyone, anymore.

Up to this point, the Hebrew judicial system, as passed verbatim from Jehovah himself, seems reasonable, and about on par with that of other early civilizations.

But, God couldn’t leave well enough alone. He continued to outlaw things until he got himself into trouble, at least from a guidance counselor's point of view. Here is a short list of some of his other prohibitions:

The eating of fat is prohibited forever. (Lev 3:17)
You cannot round the corners of your beard or the hair on your temples. (Lev 19:27)
Witches should be killed. (Ex 22:18)
The congregation was to be a bastard free zone. The Bible was so dead set against bastards that their children, even to the tenth generation, could not enter the assembly of the Lord. (Duet 23:2) This is in keeping with God’s principle of punishing children for the wrongdoings of their parents.
Handicapped people could not approach God. Their presence would profane his sanctuary. (Lev 21:16-23) This scripture single-handedly offends almost every category of handicapped persons you can name. The blind, lame, injured, hunchbacks and dwarfs are specifically named. If anyone is left out, the catchall phrase “anyone with a blemish” is thrown in to cover them. I guess in Israel, the handicapped parking stalls were at the far end of the parking lot.
Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles (Duet 23:1) Now, I will admit that keeping one’s testicles in tact is a pursuit worthy of some attention, but I have to ask: What went on in the “assembly of the Lord” that required a complete and full set of testicles? And, since testicles are usually not on display, was there someone at the gate assigned to check?
Anyone working on the Sabbath is to be killed. (Ex 35:2) This law was to protect the sanctity of Sunday afternoon football. Unfortunately, any player that touched the ball would have to be killed after the game, because he had touched a dead pig. (Lev 11:7,8) That would certainly make it easier to play defense.
Menstruating women and everything they touch are unclean. The only cure for this uncleanness was for the priest to kill a couple of pigeons. (Lev 15:19-30) What could be more logical?
If a couple has sex during the woman’s period, the two are to be cut off from their people. (Lev 20:18) Once again, how would anyone know that this had happened? The couple is obviously not going to tell. Maybe the genital inspector from the temple made house calls.
Women were officially second class citizens. They were considered possessions that were owned, (Prov 12:4) and were officially subordinate (1 Cor 14:33,34).
Homosexual men were to be executed. (Lev 20:13) No mention is made of homosexual women, probably because they’re so hot.
If a woman grabs a man’s privates during a fight, her hand is to be cut off. (Duet 25:11,12) Now, is it really necessary to have this law on the books? You get the impression that the person who was writing the laws had recently experienced this and was still a little pissed off.
False prophets are to be killed by their own parents. (Zech 13:3)
Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents. (Duet 21:18-21)
And whatever you do, don’t ever, ever, ever, pee against the wall (1 Kings 16:11 KJV). OK, I know. The phrase “anyone who pees against the wall” is just a euphamism for men. I just couldn’t resist this one.

This is a very short listing of some of the more ridiculous laws recorded in the Bible. A more exhaustive search uncovers literally hundreds of restrictions that range from the merely silly to the positively repugnant.

Section II: What things are legal
Even more surprising than the list of illegalities in the Hebrew law, is the list of crimes that were not listed. Many things that are considered criminally and morally wrong today, were not prohibited among the Hebrews. In fact, men approved by God, such as Abraham, Isaac, David, and Moses, practiced these very things:

Slavery - Exodus 21 outlines the laws for ownership and trading of slaves. A man could sell his daughter to pay off a debt. You could beat your slave, almost to the point of death. Foreign slaves could be kept forever and willed to your descendants, whereas Hebrew slaves could only be kept for a maximum of seven years, although there were exceptions to this policy. Most of the faithful men of old had slaves.

Incest - For those of you who will not want to believe this, here are the words of Abraham himself: ‘“Besides she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.”’ (Genesis 20:12) So, Abraham and Sarah were half siblings, as well as a married couple. And let’s not forget righteous Lot, who knocked up both of his daughters. By the way, doesn’t it seem a little strange that God would outlaw incest, and then create a situation where incest is mandatory? Adam and Eve’s children and Noah’s grandchildren had no choice but to marry their siblings and cousins.

Genocide - In Dueteronomy chapter 7, God commands the Isrealites to ‘utterly destroy’ seven nations that were greater and mightier than they were. Joshua says that they did exactly as commanded. According to Joshua’s census, the Isrealites numbered approximately 2.5 million. So, if the Bible is to be believed, the Hebrews extinguished seven nations numbering more than 17.5 million persons.
As well, there were several incidental holocausts along the way, such as the Midianites. In this case, the meek Moses became upset because the Israelites killed only the men, allowing the women and children to live. So, they went back and finished the job. When God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15), he told them to kill, not only the men, women, and infants, but even the animals.

Based on these boasts, Jehovah makes Hitler look like a small time thug.

Polygamy - This one doesn't even require much backup. The list of faithful men of old who had multiple wives is virtually endless - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and many, many more. In addition to taking multiple wives, most of these men also took concubines, which are basically mistresses. This leads me into the next category.

Fornication - Most moral codes frown on this, but not the Bible. Numerous faithful men of old had concubines. Many of them impregnated their slaves. Lot had sex with his daughters. Judah and Samson hired prostitutes.

Now, it seems to me that the Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery". But, for some reason, this does not appear to include having multiple wives, keeping mistresses, visiting prostitutes, having your run of the slave girls, or selling your wife/sister to another man at a profit. So, how do you break this command?

Murder - Now, to be fair, the Bible does outlaw murder. However, it doesn't seem to enforce the penalty evenly. Moses killed an Egyptian, and Samson killed thirty innocent people, so that he could steal their clothes. Both of these men retained God's approval and blessing.

The list of crimes and sins that are not condemned by the Bible could go on for a long time. The list presented above should be sufficient to prove that the Bible's moral code had a few gaps.

Within the Biblical justice system are found numerous principles that can be used to administer justice in virtually any situation. I'm sure you will find the list below to more than adequately fill the judicial needs of any modern nation:

Principle #1: Sinners should be killed.
By the way, when Cain killed 25% of the world’s population, why didn’t God give him the death penalty?

Principle #2: It doesn’t matter if the infraction is small, kill them anyway.
Don’t worry about proportions. For example, consider the case of Adam. For eating a piece of fruit, which is a violation on par with a parking ticket, the entire human race was sentenced to death. Of course, Adam himself was severely penalized by being forced to die of natural causes at the age of 950.

Principle #3: If you can’t kill the sinner, kill his children.

"The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness... but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation." - Exodus 34:6,7

(He may be slow to anger, but when he gets wound up, look out.)

Principle #4: If you can’t kill the sinner or his children, kill someone else - anyone.
Consider the occasion when King David took a census. (1 Chronicles 21) As a result of this minor infraction, seventy thousand innocent people where murdered by God.

Principle #5: Every now and then, punish someone innocent.
Jehu followed God's instructions to the letter, yet was later punished for committing the murders that God told him to commit. Talk about a no-win situation.

Principle #6: The only sure way to make up for a sin is to kill an innocent animal, or if it’s a really big sin, an innocent human.
There was a prescription for every transgression and it usually ended with some poor animal being sacrificed - unless you ate some forbidden fruit, then only the sacrifice of a perfect human would suffice.

Principle #7: Even young children can be tried in adult court, and killed for minor infractions.
Children could be stoned for stubbornness - Dueteronomy 21:18,21.
Elisha arranged for the murder of forty-two children who insulted him - 2 kings 2:23-25

Section IV: Conclusion
Advocates of capital punishment often quote Lev 24:17: “He who kills a man shall be put to death.” They seem oblivious to the preceding verse which says: “He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death.” And the many others which prescribe death for everything from stubbornness to collecting wood on the sabbath. You can’t have it both ways, if the Bible is right, then it is right.

Clearly, the Bible’s judicial system is superior to anything that our modern lawmakers are capable of writing. I know that I, for one, would welcome the implementation of this system. We have been far too tolerant of children and handicapped persons. And I don’t even remember the last time that a witch was executed.

Let’s lobby the government to implement this judicial system immediately
Of Numbers, Poop, and Other Things

Well, I guess it’s about time that I dealt with one of the housekeeping issues of this book - numbers. Although I have dealt with the Bible’s poor mathematical skills in the chapter The Numbers of the Book, up to this point I have only proven that in some cases, the Bible’s numbers are physically impossible. When it comes to the size and contents of the temple or and the length of the Egyptian bondage, the numbers just don’t add up. They must be wrong.

However, there are other cases where the Bible’s numbers cannot be proven to be internally inconsistent, yet they are likely wrong. For example, the Bible quotes population figures that seem reasonable to modern persons. It is not hard to imagine a city of a million persons. But, when one takes into consideration that ancient societies could not provide either the food or the infrastructure to support large urban populations, these census numbers seem inflated.

Another example is the extended life spans of some of the early Bible characters. Is it possible that humans lived to be hundreds of years old (in some cases nearly 1,000) back in early times? It has been suggested to me that people lived longer in ancient times because they were closer to perfection (fewer generations from creation). It has also been suggested that humans have a naturally long life span, but it was limited by God after the flood in order to minimize the damage that can be done by any one evil person.

Let’s take a look at the twin numerical issues of population and age.

What was the population of ancient Israel?

Now, this is not an easy question to answer. If we trace back to the beginning of the nation, we find that it originated with one single person. Abraham had a grandson, who was named Jacob. Because of his general goodness, Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, and he became the patriarch of the nation. He had twelve sons, each of whom headed a tribe in the nation (well, not exactly, but this is close enough).

When Jacob and his sons moved to Egypt to escape a famine in their land, the whole clan numbered 70 persons. (Ex 1:1,2,5) The Bible says they lived there for 430 years, however, if you add up the dates, you find that it could not have been more than 350. During this time, only about three generations passed. Levi was a son of Jacob. He and his son Kohath were among the 70 who entered Egypt. Moses was Kohath’s grandson. Moses left Egypt as an adult (actually a fairly old adult at 80 years of age).

By the time they left Egypt, the Bible tells us that this group had grown to 600,000 men, plus women and children - so around 1.8 million. (Ex 12:37). This group must have been reproducing like rabbits if they grew from 70 to 1.8 million in only three generations.

So, according to the Bible, the population at the time of the exodus was nearly two million. Under King David, the population had grown to approximately five million.

Those fluctuating numbers

Now, if there were 1.8 million Israelites who left Egypt to wander in the wilderness, you would think that the number should gradually increase over time, peaking under the reign of David. There may be some fluctuations due to hardship, but don’t forget that this group has been spectacularly reproductive. As they move into their new land, they should grow in number. After all, if a roving band of nomads can number into the millions, an agricultural paradise “flowing with milk and honey”, should be able to support an even larger group.

Yet, the numbers recorded in the Bible tell a very different story:
· Deborah led the Israelites during the period of the judges. This came after the time in the wilderness, but before the enthronement of the kings. She was only able to come up with 40,000 warriors. (Judges 4:6) That’s quite a drop from 600,000.
· Saul, Israel’s first King, faced a massive philistine army with only 3,000 of his own troops. Apparently, he had more, but he sent them home. (1 Sam 13:2)
· Saul’s census showed 210,000 warriors. (1 Sam 15:4)
· Not long after Saul, the army had expanded dramatically. David was Saul’s immediate successor. 2 Samuel 24:9 tells us that David had 1.3 million soldiers. On the other hand, 1 Chronicles 21:9 gives an alternate count from the same census - 1.57 million. The numbers are inconsistent, but either way, they are massive.
· Solomon’s army was also pretty large. He reigned one generation after David and had 40,000 stalls for horses for his chariots (1 Kings 4:26). Unfortunately, another account shows him to have only 1,400 chariots. That sounds a trifle inconsistent.
· Moving ahead a few generations, Rehoboam was only able to round up 180,000 warriors.
· But, only a few decades later, they were back to 1.16 million under Jehoshaphat, and that was only out of two tribes.
· That didn’t last long, either. Shortly afterward, the same two tribes could only muster 300,000.
· By the time Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Israel, the numbers were once again depleted. He carried off all of the men of valor, princes, craftsmen and smiths, and he only managed to pick up a mere 10,000.
· By the time they returned to Jerusalem from their captivity in Babylon, their total population was down to 42,360.

The numbers quoted in the Bible tend to change from one writer to the next. One scribe will attribute astronomical numbers to the nation and the army, numbers that would be large even for modern nations with sophisticated logistics and home populations that are orders of magnitude greater than that of ancient Israel.

The next writer will drop the numbers dramatically, then will be followed by another one who inflates them by 1,000% to 10,000%. Sometimes, conflicting accounts will give two different quantities for the same census.

Obviously, these numbers are unreliable. But, there’s more.

In very early times, armies were small. The logistics of transporting, arming, feeding, and organizing large groups of people simply didn’t exist. During the iron age, which began around 1200 BC, armies began to grow larger. Around the beginning of this time period, King David’s army supposedly grew to 1.57 million. Yet, the far greater empires of Rome and Greece, many years later, reached peaks that were much lower than this.

…the army of Alexander sometimes exceeded 60,000 men. Roman military forces, which at the end of the empire totaled 350,000 men, could routinely field armies upward of 40,000.

So, the Greek and Roman empires, as great as they were, did not exceed 350,000 warriors. Yet, we are expected to believe that the Hebrews, many years before the Greeks and Romans, managed nearly five times the army of Rome, and over twenty six times the army of Alexander.

If the Israelite armies were as large as the Bible claims, Israel should have been the undisputed master of the earth. Instead, although they dominated the neighboring tribes for a while, they never became influential outside of their immediate region.

The feasibility of huge armies, cities, and nomadic camps

The Bible makes some stupendous claims regarding the population of Israel. It claims that under King David, the size of the army was 1.57 million. This would extrapolate into a national population of at least five million persons. In order for this to be the case, the population of ancient Israelite cities must have been enormous. Jerusalem, and the other major cities must have been metropolises, or close to it. The Bible even claims that approximately two million persons lived in a temporary mobile camp for 40 years, roaming the Sinai Peninsula.

Is this possible? Well, to get a little perspective, I perused a Sociology textbook. Here is one of the interesting points that I uncovered:

“Between 50 and 90 farmers were required to produce sufficient food to sustain themselves and one person in the first cities.”

Before the automation of agriculture, the primary pursuit of the human race was food production. Urban populations were limited by the amount of food that the rural population was able to produce, in excess of their own needs. As a result, a city of 10,000 persons would need to sit atop a rural population of 500,000 to 1,000,000. As time went on, agriculture became more efficient, allowing the size of cities to grow in proportion to total population.

But, in the early days, cities were necessarily small. How small were they? Well, take a look at this comment:

“Athens, the prima city of the ancient world peaked with a population of 120,000 to 180,000”

So, logically, the population of Israel could not have been five million at any point in its Biblical history. Even Athens, which sat upon a world empire, and existed centuries after Israel reached its peak, was tiny by modern standards.

The Camp of Israel
As I mentioned earlier, approximately 600,000 Israelite warriors left Egypt during the exodus. If we assume one warrior for every three persons, that brings the population of the exodus to 1.8 million. For round figures, let’s assume there were two million of them. Some persons have estimated this ratio considerably higher, but as always, I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.

This group lived in a temporary camp that wandered throughout the wilderness for forty years. Needless to say, a population, or should I say poopulation (a pun you will understand later) of two million, living in tents, creates tremendous logistical difficulties.

Let’s focus in on the logistical difficulties encountered in just one of the necessities of human life.

“You shall have a place outside the camp and you shall go out to it; and you shall have a stick with your weapons; and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it, and turn back and cover up your excrement. Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp,” - Deut 23:11-14

I guess He didn’t want to step in anything.

Now, let’s calculate. If each person relieved himself only twice a day (an obviously low estimate), and each deposit used one square foot of land surface (also a pretty low estimate), that means that every day, the Israelites turned 93 acres of land into a sewage lagoon. If they stayed in the same spot for a month, around 4 ½ square miles would be consumed - a veritable poop farm. During their 40 years in the wilderness, 2,160 square miles would have been used (that’s 1,357,800 acres). No wonder it was wilderness.

When you consider that there were two million people living in tents, and every one of them had to leave the camp to go to the bathroom - a bathroom that moved farther away every day, they must have spent half their life walking.

If we assume that the camp had a population density equal to modern Hong Kong (which is totally ridiculous, but we’ll give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, again), it would have occupied at least 44 square miles. That means that if you lived in the center of the camp, you would need to walk 3.7 miles, each way, every time you went to the bathroom. You would need to plan your bathroom breaks hours in advance. And, by the time you returned, you would need to go again. You’d think that God could have come up with a better system.

Now, the camp of Israel was approximately the same population as the greater Vancouver or Cincinatti area. Just imagine yourself living in one of those two cities. Now, imagine that every time you had to go to the bathroom, you had to walk outside the metropolitan area, find an unused spot, dig a hole with a stick, do your business, cover it up, and then walk home. This is the best system that the Almighty of the Universe could think of.

Not only that, if we assume that each of these persons spent only two minutes digging their hole and doing their business, that means that at any one time, there would be an average of 5,500 persons simultaneously squatting on their holes. It must have looked like a pooping convention.

There are a host of other problems with this story.
- Why were the Israelites (remember, 600,000 warriors strong) running from and afraid of a mere 600 Egyptian chariots? (Ex 14:7)
- Why were they afraid to go into a city that had the massive number of 5000 warriors? In fact, would it even have been possible for them to enter?
- The total population of Egypt prior to the exodus was actually less than the number of Israelites who left it. That doesn’t make any sense.

In other words, there weren’t nearly as many Israelites in the camp as the Bible claims. In fact, a more reasonable estimate for the number is around 7,000, not two million. That is, assuming that the exodus even happened. Once again, the Bible exaggerates, this time overstating the number by at least 300 times. And, don’t forget that I have given the Bible the benefit of every doubt by underestimating the ratio of warriors to population, ignoring the presence of their animals, assuming impossibly high population densities, and attributing almost legendary bladder capacity to the Hebrews.

So, what really was the population of ancient Israel?

According to the Bible, Israel grew from around two million after the exodus to five million under King David, with bizarre fluctuations in between. Cities, and even temporary camps were metropolises, rivaling modern cities.

So, how many Israelites were there, really? Here is what a Jewish encyclopedia says:

The population of ancient Israel was probably about 300,000 at its maximum in the time of David. This is based on estimates of about 10,000 for capital cities like Jerusalem and Samaria, 2000-3000 for regional centres like Dan, Megiddo and Beersheba, and 500-1000 for small country towns or villages.

This strikes me as pretty reasonable.

So, like many other numbers in the Bible, the population of Israel and the size of its army appear to have been exaggerated by at least an order of magnitude, sometimes by two orders of magnitude.

In the early part of the Bible, life spans of up to 969 years are recorded. In fact, if a person died before age 300, it seemed like he was a virtual child. Noah didn’t even start his family until he was over 500.

These life spans seem incredible to modern people. There does not seem to be any corroborating evidence from archeology that would back up the Bible’s claims. However, absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. So, let’s look at this from another perspective.

These long life spans create some strange overlaps. For example, in the days prior to the flood, God looked at the earth and saw that it was wicked. Only Noah was righteous, so God assigned him the job of building the ark. Noah worked on the ark for 100 years, before the flood came along. But, if you carefully add up the ages of his ancestors, you find that his father, Lamech, who was apparently righteous, died only five years prior to the flood. And his grandfather, Methuselah, who was also apparently righteous, died either in the flood, or immediately before it.

So, when God proclaimed that only Noah, in all the earth, was righteous, he had forgotten about Noah’s righteous father and grandfather.

Noah continued to live for another 350 years after the flood. But, shortly after the flood, things went bad. Noah’s great grandson, Nimrod, turned out to be a… well, a Nimrod. He turned against God and started to build a city. But, Noah himself was still alive while this happened. You would think that the presence of Noah, the patriarch of the human race at that time would have had a dampening effect on Nimrod’s badness.

Similarly, depending on how you calculate the birth date of Abraham, it appears that Noah and Abraham may have coexisted for a while.

These life span claims put a significant amount of pressure on world history. The Bible claims that prior to the days of Nimrod, everyone spoke the same language and lived in relatively close proximity. It was not until God confused the languages at Babel that humans divided into different language groups and began to form different cultures. By adding the dates of birth, we find that the flood occurred around 2370 BC. If we allow for a couple of generations for Nimrod to be born, another one for him to grow up and build a following, and a few more after the confusion of the languages for unique cultures to develop, we find that distinct cultures should not appear prior to 2200 BC. Even then, I am assuming some spectacular reproduction and mortality numbers.

Yet, we find considerable evidence exists that distinct cultures existed long before this date. The pyramids date back to 2600 BC. The Chinese calendar begins in our year 2696 BC - 326 years before the flood. The Egyptians, Mayans, and others trace their history back to dates that precede the flood.

So, as can be seen, the Bible’s long life spans create some internal inconsistencies. As well, secular history provides ample evidence that the time periods just don’t add up.

The Curious Case of Abraham

The events of Abraham’s life provide clear evidence of the Bible’s ad hoc approach to history. Consider the time-line of his later life.

In Genesis chapter 18, the Bible tells us that Abraham and Sarah have gotten old. Sarah is 90, and is no longer menstruating. Abraham is 100. God tells them that they will have a son. They consider this to be crazy. Sarah actually laughs at the prospect, because it seems so preposterous.

Why is this preposterous? Well, people who are 90 and 100 years old do not have children without miraculous intervention. In fact, most people do not even live to that age. Even in Biblical times, where ages of nearly a millennium were claimed, the maximum age had been tapering off. After the flood, God said that he had had enough of people’s wickedness, so he limited life spans to 120 years: “Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." - Genesis 6:3.

So, the story of Abraham continues. God blesses them with a son, whom we all know as Isaac. The story then branches off into other directions.

Well, a considerable amount of time passes. Eventually Sarah dies at the ripe old age of 127. Abraham is still alive, being 137 years old at the time.

Now, I don’t want to belabor the point, but Abraham and Sarah were very old. Genesis chapter 21 mentions, on at least two occasions, that Abraham had a child in his old age. It was obviously very unusual to have a child at the age of 100. So unusual that it could be considered evidence of divine intervention. In fact, after Sarah dies, Abraham commissions his servant to travel with his son to find a wife, ostensibly because Abraham is either too old to travel or doesn’t expect to live long enough to see him married.

What happens next? Well, Sarah is barely cold in the grave when Abraham gets remarried. He then proceeds to have six more children, and lives for another 38 years, dieing at the age of 175.

If it requires divine intervention to have a child at 100 years of age, then how can he have six children midway through his second century?

Actually, we learn from Exodus that Moses’ mother, Jochabed, was 260 years old when he was born. So, why was Abraham and Sarah’s conception of Isaac such a strange event, when women were giving birth at more that double their age? Actually, the writer of Exodus apparently messed up on this one. He probably just lost count when he was making up the begats.

The curious case of Abraham shows us very clearly that the tales in the Bible are just myths. The ages recorded in the Bible are exaggerated and internally inconsistent.

The Old Newlywed

When Isaac is an old man, he decides that it is time for his son, Jacob, to find a wife. So, he commissions one of his servants to take the boy on a journey to his relatives, in order to find a suitable wife.

After arriving, Jacob meets the perfect girl. All he has to do is work for seven years in order to win her father’s permission. As it turns out, he ends up working for fourteen years, and gets two wives out of the deal.

Now, how old would you say that Jacob is when this happens? The story seems to indicate that he is relatively young - too young to be entrusted with selecting his own wife, but old enough to be marraigable. Would you guess around 20, or perhaps 25 years of age?

Well, you would be wrong. If you add up the dates given in the Bible, you will find that Jacob was 76 years old. He received his two wives at age 83, and finished his servitude to Laban at age 90.

So, why is it necessary for Abraham to require divine intervention to have a child at 100 years of age, when his grandson waited until age 83 to have his first of 13 children?

My point
Let’s recap a bit:
· The Bible’s population and military census numbers are inconsistent. The figures change dramatically from one year to the next. Sometimes, different figures are reported for the same census in two different Bible books.
· The numbers are grossly exaggerated. Israelite national and city population could not have been even close to the numbers reported in the Bible.
· Secular history does not agree with the Bible’s timetable.
· Many stories, like the story of Abraham, do not make sense. Some of the characters are given life spans that overlap other stories, making them seem ridiculous.
· As I pointed out in another chapter, many of the numbers don’t even add up properly.

The point I’m trying to make with this chapter is that when it comes to numbers, whether they be population, age, money, or other, the Bible can’t be trusted.

Wouldn’t it be great to have a magic wand? Imagine… need a little money? Just wave the wand, and presto! You have all you need. Break your leg or come down with the flu - no problem. A flick of the wrist and it’s all better.
Most people outgrow this type of whimsy. Although it makes for great stories, no one really believes that life’s problems can be fixed that easily - or do they?
On my way home from work yesterday, I noticed a sign at a bus stop that said, “Someone, somewhere, is praying for you.” It made me wonder if I am any better off, due to the activity of this unknown person who is praying for me. Is prayer like a magic wand that, once activated, will give you whatever you want? In fact, will it give you anything at all?
There are very few activities that have consumed as much human time as prayer. Millions, if not billions, of people pray regularly. With all of these existential petitions floating around, you would think that if prayer really worked, it must be the great driving force of the universe.
Yet, whenever a prayer advocate is questioned about the efficacy of his activity, the answer is always indefinite. You hear things like, “God works in mysterious ways”, or “God answers every prayer, but sometimes the answer is ‘no’”.
Imagine what would happen if you picked up a bottle of Aspirin at the drug store, and the label said, “This product works in mysterious ways”, or “Every pill is effective, but sometimes the effect is neutral”, or better yet, “This pill will make you feel better, but only if the universe wills it to be so.”
Really, it shouldn’t be that hard to determine if prayer works. For example, let’s consider a few simple concepts:

1. Testing: If prayer works, then Christians should be healthier, less prone to accidents, and live longer than atheists (eliminating the effects of knowable factors, such as smoking). I would like to propose a double blind study. This should prove conclusively if prayer has any impact. Two control groups of people would be isolated. One group would have prayers said for them, the others would not. At the end of a period of time, there should be a statistically significant difference in the well being of the two groups.
2. Insurance: The insurance industry, which is noted for its hard-hearted adherence to mathematical accuracy, consistently gives discounts for behaviours that are proven to reduce risk, and penalizes persons who pursue high risk activities. Why don’t they give a discount to people who pray, or perhaps apply an atheist surcharge? Simply because there is no difference in risk.
3. Randomness of the universe: In areas where prayer is prevalent, you would expect living conditions to be better. Yet, hunger, disease, and poverty seem to visit religious areas with the same frequency as nations that are officially atheist. If anything, areas that are devoutly religious tend to be more disadvantaged than areas that are more secular.
4. Paradoxes: The presence of a paradox in a person’s conclusions generally indicates that there is an error in either his logic or his assumptions. This raises the question: What if people pray for offsetting things? A person may pray that their loved one will receive a heart transplant. However this can only happen if someone else frees up a heart by ceasing to have need of one. The donor may be praying just as hard as the recipient, yet only one will live. Or, how many times have you seen sports teams or military chaplains pray for victory? If one side is to be blessed with victory, then the other side must be cursed with defeat. In other words, you can’t give everyone everything they want. On a related subject, can I foil someone’s prayer by offsetting it with one of my own?

In addition to simply testing the efficacy of prayer, it also raises the question: “What does prayer say about God?” We have been taught that God is loving, generous, and cannot be bribed.
But, if it is true that prayer produces results, then it must also be true that a lack of prayer produces nothing better than random results. In other words, if a person is unconscious and has no one to pray for him, does God ignore him? That seems a little hard hearted. If a person gets lots of prayers, does that person do better than someone with few? That sounds like simony.
In fact, why does God need prompting, at all - doesn’t he know what needs to be done, or does he just like making people beg? Does he not have enough compassion or forethought to help people without being asked?
Prayer advocates have attempted to justify some of these problems through the use of numerous excuses. For example, I have been told that you can’t pray for just anything, it has to be according to God’s will. Well, if you can only pray for things that God already wills, and no one can possibly stop the Almighty, then why bother praying? It will happen anyway. I have been told that you can’t pray for anything bad or anything selfish. I have also been told that if you are willfully sinning, your prayers won’t be answered. In other words, you must pray by the rules.
To put an end to the matter once and for all, I propose a simple challenge. The Bible says that whatever you ask, as long as it is according to God’s will, it will be granted. It also says that it is his will for all men to be saved. I challenge any prayer advocate to pray for Osama Bin Laden (or worse yet, for me) to repent and turn to God.
If Bin and I get the calling, then we will all know that prayer works. If not, then the unknown person that the bus stop claims is praying for me, might as well go home.

DANNY BOY

According to Bible tradition, the book of Daniel was written during the sixth century B.C. by a historical figure with the same name as the book.

The book of Daniel contains a number of beloved children’s stories, such as the story of Daniel in the lion’s den, and the attempted incineration of the three faithful Hebrew boys. But, some people consider the book of Daniel to be far more significant than this.

For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses use a section of Daniel to prove that the “time of the end” began in 1914. In fact, their numerology relies heavily on the book of Daniel to prove that Armageddon is nigh. This doctrine is one of the few unique cornerstones of Jehovah’s Witness doctrine.

Unfortunately for them, of all of the books included the Bible, Daniel’s presence in the accepted canon is probably more suspect than any other. Bible scholars have placed the writing of the book much later than its traditional date of origin, likely in the second or third century, B.C. This means that the uncanny accuracy of Daniel’s prophesies was not quite such a great feat. It’s not hard to predict the future after it has already happened.

There is a great amount of internal evidence that Daniel was not written by Daniel, nor was it written in the sixth century B.C. I would like to take one chapter, and devote it to highlighting the difficulty of accepting Daniel as inspired.

When did Jehoiakim reign?
The writer of the book of Daniel wasted no time in getting himself into historical trouble. Consider the first verse of the first chapter:

“In the third year of the reign of Jehoi'akim king of Judah, Nebuchadnez'zar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” - Daniel 1:1

History tells us that Jehoiakim began reigning in 609 B.C. This would mean that the third year of his rule was 606 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar did not become king until 605 B.C. So, the intersection of their reigns is not in the correct place. As well, Nebuchadnezzar’s first attack on Jerusalem did not take place until 597 B.C., nine years later than the account in Daniel.

So, the writer of Daniel quickly establishes himself as a poor historian. But, it gets even worse for him. In order to add credibility to his tale, he apparently picked a legendary ancient worthy to credit with the writing of the book.

According to the book of Daniel, Daniel himself was a Hebrew who rose to prominence during the Israelite captivity in Babylon (586 - 537 B.C.) By the time of their release, he was an old man and did not make the trip back to his homeland. He may have been born in Israel, prior to its destruction.

The earliest mention of him is in the following scriptures:

“… even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord GOD” - Ezekiel 14:14

“as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter.” - Ezekiel 14:20

“The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre… you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;” - Ezekiel 28:1-3

Now, we need to remember that Ezekiel was older than the Daniel character. Ezekiel was in full swing as a prophet around the year 600 B.C., which is about fifty years prior to Daniel’s activity. The first two of the references to Daniel mentioned above, were both spoken prior to 589 B.C.

So, how is it that a senior prophet like Ezekiel would make reference to Daniel, comparing him to the giants of Hebrew legend - Noah and Job? If anything, Daniel would be merely a child at this time. He could not possibly have achieved that kind of status and reputation for wisdom. In fact, he may not even have been born yet.

Clearly, the character of Daniel had already achieved legendary status, long before the events of his supposed lifetime. In all likelihood, a second century B.C. writer attributed his work to the name “Daniel” to increase its stature.

Placing the ancient Daniel character in the sixth century B.C. does not make sense.

Who was Belshazzar?
According to the book of Daniel, Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezar. This is mentioned at least five times. Yet, history shows that Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus, who ruled four kings after Nebuchadnezar, and was no relation to him.

You would think that Daniel, who was the Prime Minister of Babylon would have known this. On the other had, this is precisely the type of mistake that could be made by a writer four hundred years in the future.

Who ran the country?
At one point, King Nebuchadnezzar was pretty impressed with Daniel. In fact, he appointed Daniel as the ruler of the whole province of Babylon. Daniel decided to stay in the king’s court, and appointed his three buddies over the province:

“Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. Daniel made request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but Daniel remained at the king's court..” - Daniel 2:48, 49

Well, before long, Daniel and his friends had made another good impression on Nebuchadnezzar. So, how were they rewarded?

“Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego in the province of Babylon.” - Daniel 4:30

Now, if these boys already ruled “over the whole province of Babylon”, how could they be promoted? It sounds like the writer forgot that he had already done this.

By the way, did you notice that Daniel ran the province of Babylon during the reigns of five different kings? In fact, after Babylon was destroyed, Daniel was appointed to a position in the new government of Cyrus. This seems highly unlikely, especially since two of the Babylonian successions were by force. In a peaceful succession, it is possible for the Prime Minister to remain, but it is unlikely that Nergal-ashur-usur or Nabonidus would have retained the king’s right hand man, especially after killing the king himself. So, we have yet another difficulty with this story.

Who was Darius?
The writer of the book of Daniel was not very well versed in history. Consider this reference:

“In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasu-e'rus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chalde'ans” - Daniel 9:1

This sentence contains more holes than Swiss cheese. I’m not even sure where to begin.

First of all, history shows that Ahasuerus ruled Persia between 486 B.C. and 465 B.C. So, the son of Ahasuerus could not possibly be in power in 537 B.C. The chronology is out by at least 72 years.

Secondly, the writer appears to be rather confused about Darius. There were actually three Darius’ that ruled Persia, none of whom were Medes. The first Darius ruled between 521 and 486 B.C. However, Darius I was not the son of Ahasuerus. He was the father of Ahasuerus. Darius II doesn’t show up until 424 B.C., which is 42 years after the death of Ahasuerus. He wasn’t Ahauerus’ son, either.

The reference “who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans” appears to refer to Darius I (Darius the Great). But, even if we overlook the incorrect father/son relationship, our dates are still wrong. Darius I did not rise to power until 521 B.C. - 16 years too late.

So, the writer of Daniel did not know when Darius ruled, and he did not understand the relationship between him and Ahasuerus. He also seems to think that the Medes defeated Babylon, prior to the accension of Persia. In actual fact, the Medes existed alongside Babylon, and fell to Persia at the same time.

Once again, the writer of Daniel reveals that he was not present during these events, and in fact, is not even a particularly well informed resident of the second century, B.C.

Where are the historical records?
At the outset, I would like to clarify that I understand that absence of evidence does not necessarily indicate evidence of absence. In other words, the fact that the Bible events recorded in Babylon did not get into any other secular records, does not prove that the Bible account is fiction. Although, it does make one wonder…

For example, Daniel served as Prime Minister to Nebuchadnezzar, and apparently held this post right up to the destruction of Babylon - a period between 23 and 47 years in length. Yet, he is not mentioned in any of the Babylonian records from that time period.

As well, the Bible tells us that Nebuchadnezzar experienced a seven year bout of madness, where he roamed in the fields and ate grass like a bull. Well, not only does the secular record not record such a thing, but there are not even any gaps in his reign. There are no seven year periods in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar that do not have references to his actions as king.

In the third chapter of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar built an image of gold that was 87.5 feet tall, and 8.75 feet wide. This project, which would surely have bankrupted the royal treasury, was not mentioned in the secular record.

So, it appears that whenever the book of Daniel intersects with history, history either contradicts the Bible, or is strangely silent.

Where is Daniel traditionally placed?
The presence of the book of Daniel in the official Bible canon has been the subject of debate. Even the contents of the book are disputable. For example, the Catholic Bible carries an extended version of the book which includes the story of “Bel and the Dragon”.

Jewish tradition places the book of Daniel in a strange place. Based on the supposed date of authorship, it should be squarely in the prophetic section, along with Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. The last book in the prophetic section is Jonah, which was apparently written around 300 B.C. Yet, the Jewish canon places Daniel in the “writings”, indicating a later authorship.

In fact, if the book of Daniel had been written any later, it would not have even made it into the writings, but would have been relegated to the apocrypha, where many people would argue that it belongs, anyway.

In what language was the book written?
Parts of the book of Daniel were written in Aramaic. This would indicate that the book was written around the second or third century, B.C. The Aramaic language was not in common use among the Hebrews during the Babylonian exile.

Conclusion
The book of Daniel appears to be completely correct whenever it refers to the the Greek period, but is filled with anacronysms whenever it deals with the period of the exile. Doesn’t it seem strange that Daniel could predict the future more accurately than he could record the present?

Imagine finding a manuscript that claimed to be written by William Shakespeare. Yet, the text is written in modern English, it makes reference to skateboards and airplanes, and it makes numerous mistakes regarding the events of the sixteenth century. Which would be more likely - that Shakespeare was a prophet who knew the future, or that the manuscript is a fake? Obviously, one would have to be a spectacular fool to believe that the manuscript was authentic. Yet, that is exactly what religious people today believe.

There is only one appropriate way to end this chapter:

Daniel, you are THE WEAKEST LINK! Please leave the Bible.

Souls and Money

All of my stories to this point have dealt with ancient, Bible themes. I will now take a brief trip into the present day, but with an ancient link.

You may recall (from the Chapter “The Numbers of the Book”) that, if the Bible is to be believed, the temple workers must have been spectacular slackers. The amount of work accomplished in those 1.281 Million man-years of labor was paltry enough to make even the laziest Teamster blush with embarrassment. Well, those old workers have their modern productivity counterpart - Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Those smiling people who come your door with the Watchtower and Awake magazines are engaged in a very serious business - a business that uses sophisticated performance management, sales training, and measurement techniques.

In this chapter, I will give an overview of the business side of those door to door recruiters, and conclude with a rather startling analysis of their effectiveness. Here is a behind the scenes look at the business of being a Jehovah’s Witness.

Organization of the Work
In order to ensure that all residences and businesses receive a regular visit, and to prevent multiple calls from being made on a home in the same day, Jehovah’s Witnesses have divided up the world into “territories”. Each congregation has specific boundaries in which to operate. The congregation’s territory is further subdivided into individual territories that encompass only a few blocks. If you live in virtually any part of the western world, you can rest assured that your home is on a Jehovah’s Witness territory map.

These territories are signed out by individual Witnesses, who make calls on all of the homes and businesses on the map. If you are not home on the first visit, they will mark down your address for further reference. Once the territory is completed, they will return to call on all of the “not-at-homes”. This will be done as many times as necessary to get to every house.

If you are foolish enough to accept their literature, your name and address will be marked down by the individual Witness in their personal records. You are now a “return visit”. They will return regularly, usually every two weeks, until you tell them to go away. So, don’t think that you can get rid of them by taking their magazines. They consider this an invitation to return.

By the way, if you tell a Jehovah’s Witness not to call on you anymore, they must write it down on the territory card, and avoid your house for at least two years. I bet you never thought it was that easy. Try it.

At the end of the month, every Jehovah’s Witness must fill in a service report. This is basically a time sheet, where a complete record of activity is reported. The report includes the number of hours spent in field service; the number of magazines, books, and brochures placed; the number of return visits performed; and the number of bible studies conducted. Every minute that a Witness spends in the door to door work is recorded. In fact, most Witnesses pad their numbers a little bit. As well, if you ever run into a Jehovah’s Witness in an informal setting, and the conversation begins to remotely border on religion or even world events, you can rest assured that they are counting time.

These reports are tabulated for the congregation and then sent to the national headquarters for inclusion in the world wide statistics. Within the congregation, it serves another purpose. Individuals are formally classified, based on their performance:
· Pioneer - 80 or more hours per month. This is an ongoing requirement for those in this category.
· Auxiliary Pioneer - 50 or more hours per month. Persons in this category may achieve this status on a month by month basis, or an ongoing basis.
· Publisher - Anyone reporting time fits into this category. Publishers are encouraged to spend 10 hours per month in the service.
· Irregular publisher - Anyone who reports time, but has missed at least one month out of the past six, will receive this classification. There is some stigma attached to this category.
· Inactive - Anyone who has formerly reported time, but has not reported for the last six months, is considered inactive. There is a lot of stigma attached to this category

In addition, informal classification also occurs. A person can be considered “weak” or “strong”, within each category, depending on their sales activity.

These classifications are then used to distribute rewards and punishments. Good Witnesses receive privileges, visible honors such as being asked to say public prayers or handle various jobs at the Kingdom Hall, and may be promoted to the position of Elder or Ministerial Servant. Weak Witnesses are marginalized. They receive fewer or no privileges, and are often excluded from social functions. In addition, weak Witnesses are targeted for special visits by the elders. These visits are used to encourage weak ones by pressuring them to spend more time in the sales activity.

A listing of every person in the congregation along with their summarized service record is printed and distributed to every Elder and Ministerial servant in the congregation. This enables the congregation to know who is performing better, and so the system of reward and punishment takes a further step. As well, congregation and national sales statistics are discussed regularly at their meetings.

So, participation in the door to door sales work is the basis of the social hierarchy of the entire Jehovah’s Witness society.

Performance Enhancement
In addition to this sophisticated performance measurement, reward, and punishment system, there is also a system of training. Each week, Jehovah’s Witnesses attend five hours of meetings over a period of three days. One of the meetings, which is usually held on a weekday evening, consists of two sections. The first section is a one hour public speaking school, where congregation members practice delivering prepared speeches or demonstrations.

The second section is a one hour sales meeting, called a “Service Meeting”, where Witnesses receive instruction on how to sell and convert more effectively. At this meeting, sample door to door presentations are demonstrated, literature offers are reviewed, and material from a monthly newsletter is studied. The format of the meeting is much like a business sales meeting that attempts to improve sales effectiveness and motivation.

In every congregation, one of the elders will be assigned to the position of "Service Overseer". It is his job to whip up enthusiasm for the work. He will visit the smaller study groups regularly, and and give them motivational speeches. As well, each congregation is visited by a "Circuit Overseer" on a semi-annual basis.

Many years later, I have come to wonder about the term "overseer". The only other place where I have heard the expression is in relation to slavery prior to the civil war - coincidence?

As can be seen, the single most important indicator of a person’s status comes from the service report. Remember, when you are a Jehovah’s Witness, the effectiveness of your work doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is the number of hours, and to a lesser extent, placements, recorded on your time sheet. In addition, although you will never get one to admit it, most Jehovah’s Witnesses really hate doing this work. Not surprisingly, Witnesses have developed an entire subculture, which subconsciously develops sophisticated informal methods of padding their numbers, without actually breaking the specified rules.

So, Just How Well Does This Work?
With all of this organizational structure, and huge amounts of labor, you would think that they would be converting people in droves. Well, this is just not the case. For example, let’s take a look at the statistics from my home country, Canada.

Last year, there were 107,218 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada. They reported 18,544,473 hours of field service. This activity resulted in 2,030 new baptisms. Now, let’s calculate their efficiency.

Each Witness averaged 173 hours in field service during the year. Every baptism came as a result of 9,135 hours of reported activity. Another way of stating this is that it took 53 JW person-years of activity to generate one baptism. This does not seem terribly efficient, but it is really just the tip of the iceberg.

If you attend a Jehovah’s Witness convention, you will find that the majority of their newly baptized members are not converts from outside the organization. Approximately 90% of them are children of their own members. It is not necessary to canvass from door to door in order to contact your own children. So, of those 2,030 baptisms last year, only about 200 of them represent actual converts.

Now let’s rerun the calculation, using more realistic numbers. Each convert came as a result of 91,352 hours of field service activity, or 529 person-years. This seems to be a grossly inefficient use of labor.

How many doors must JW’s knock on, in order to make a convert? Well, that depends on the type of activity. If a Witness is conducting a Bible study, then one call could take a full hour, or possibly even more. If that same person is canvassing new territory, then 20 or 30 calls could be made in an hour. If we make the assumption that each hour of field service generates five house calls, then 456,760 doors must be approached to find one convert. Since the average Canadian household contains 2.6 persons, then a total population of almost 1.2 million must be contacted in order to make one Jehovah’s Witness convert.

But, it gets even worse than this. I have given them the benefit of the doubt and assumed that all 200 of these converts came as a result of the door to door work. Really, many of them came into contact with Jehovah’s Witnesses through informal methods, such as friends, relatives, and coworkers.

Souls and Money
So, really, the door to door work of Jehovah’s Witnesses is virtually useless when it comes to converting people. But, if they’re not going to get your soul, why do they do it? Well, primarily there are three reasons.

In certain markets, the door to door work produces adequate results. For example, in post World War II North America, as well as in contemporary third world countries, this work has managed to bring in a sufficient number of souls. However, the market has long since been saturated, and the geriatric leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses (the President is usually in his 90’s), is extremely slow at reacting to change.

Secondly, this activity provides busy work for their members. People feel good when they volunteer. This activity provides satisfaction and an outlet for energy. It also contributes to the bonding of members, and doctrinal debates with outsiders reinforce their belief system. Eventually, the measurement of this activity becomes an end in itself. The service report is the prime tool for monitoring and controlling the slaves (oops, members).

Thirdly, and most importantly, is the reason that all Jehovah’s Witnesses will deny, and in fact, most outsiders dismiss as ridiculous - money. Now, you will not find Witnesses shamelessly begging for donations, nor will you find them selling overpriced products. Their magazines are inexpensive and appear to have little profit margin in them. In fact, in many countries, the magazines are given away freely, with only a small donation being suggested.

However, the magazines are a little deceptive. They are produced in large quantities by volunteer labour; the paper, illustrations, and writing are low quality; and they receive free distribution by volunteers. These magazines would probably cost less than ten cents to produce commercially, and even less in their own printing factories.

Back in the days when magazines were sold for a fixed price, their price was 35 cents (Canadian). All magazines were purchased by the individual Witness, then sold to the public at cost. So, there would be a profit margin of 25 cents or more per copy, with no copies wasted. Every year 1.2 Billion Watchtowers and Awakes are printed, along with millions of books. The worldwide net profit on printed materials runs well over $500 million per year. As well, like any other religion, donations are also accepted.

This massive profit can only be achieved if slave (oops, volunteer) labour is used every step of the way. Last year, Jehovah’s Witnesses reported 1.15 Billion hours in field service, and this does not count the volunteer time spent in their factories, or the seemingly endless meetings and conventions. In other words, the average Jehovah’s Witness works for around 30 cents per hour. It’s beginning to look like the Jehovah’s Witness religion is the Indonesian sneaker factory of the religious world. This hardly seems like a profit generating activity, but when you multiply really small numbers by really big numbers, significant wealth is generated.

Conclusion
Jehovah’s Witnesses are constantly looking for modern fulfillment of Bible events. For example, because of their prophesying work, they consider themselves to be the modern “Elijah” class. They also consider their governing body to be the “faithful and wise servant” from one of Jesus’ illustrations.

Based on the efficiency of their preaching work, I would like to add one more comparison to their list. They could be the modern “temple worker” class. Certainly, the productivity of these two groups is without rival.
ORIGINAL SIN

Last night, I had an unusual experience - well, unusual for you, not for me. I’ve been through it around 40 times.
Every spring, the Jehovah’s Witness religion holds its only ceremony, called the Memorial of Christ’s Death. It is held on the Jewish date of Nisan 14, and, for an outsider, it is one of the strangest customs you will ever encounter. It’s kind of like Easter, in a perverse sort of way.
It begins with the local congregation beating the bush for every warm body that they can find, to bring up the attendance. Although I haven’t been in a Kingdom Hall for a couple of years, I thought I would throw the relatives a bone this year by taking in the local memorial. They still hold out hope that I will return to the flock.
Once the hall is filled, a short sermon is given, explaining the events on the last day of Jesus’ life. Then a glass of wine and a plate of unleavened bread is passed around - but, you’re not supposed to drink or eat any of it. Only those who are going to heaven get to eat the stuff, and most of them died in the 1920s. Us lowly other ones are just observers.
So, we observe the glass and the plate being handed around, then wrap up the proceedings and go home. Sixteen million people did this last year. What a fricken waste of time.
Anyway, at least it got me thinking. This whole issue of Jesus ransom sacrifice is based on some pretty shaky logic. Let’s take a look at some of the flaws in it.
Unfairness - First of all, we have the problem of the unfairness of original sin. Why are people punished for the sin of their ancestors? Why am I sentenced to death because a naked chick ate a piece of fruit at the insistence of a talking snake? Never mind the lunacy of the premise, I want to know what kind of court would convict me for a crime committed by someone else.
Proportion - Where I live, the toughest sentence for a crime is life in prison, which ends up at 25 years or less. This means that the worst crime that our society can imagine is worthy of taking only a portion of a person’s life. Yet, for the sake of a piece of fruit, God has sentenced billions of people to the death penalty. The crime committed in Eden is on par with a parking ticket. Get some perspective, God.
Science - As I understand the story, we all die because Adam and Eve sinned, and they passed on their sin to us. But, why would sin be hereditary? You can only pass on to your decendents the contents of your genes. If Adam and Eve were created perfect, then their genetic material must also have been perfect. You can’t inherit something like theft - it isn’t a genetic item. It would be like inheriting a haircut or a trip to the store. God needs to brush up on his genetics.
Consistency - If we grow old and die because of original sin, then why do animals grow old and die? They age and get sick, just like us, often from the same diseases. So, if human aging and death is such an unnatural state that it requires a supernatural explanation, then why don’t we require the same explanation from the animal kingdom? Dogs were created directly by God, and everything he does is perfect. So, dogs must therefore be perfect. If they die, then aging and death must be the perfect progression and ending state for them, unless they also sinned. Perhaps Rover ate a forbidden kibble.
Suffering - Much fuss has been made about Jesus suffering on our behalf. Mel Gibson has shown us in graphic and profitable detail exactly what Jesus went through, so we should be grateful. But, I say what’s the big deal? Jesus was tortured and killed. Many other people have also been tortured and killed under equal or worse conditions, notably the guys who were crucified beside him. He had a bad experience, but it wasn’t supernaturally bad. Others have had worse. The son of God should have been subjected to a whopper of a torture session. But, he wasn’t.
Death - Can we really say that Jesus died for our sins? The tragedy of death is really twofold - the experience of the moment of death, and the eternal oblivion that follows it. The true tragedy is the lack of a return. Jesus had the first part, but he didn’t stay dead very long - only about a day and a half, and he skipped the worst part entirely. He missed out on the eternity of oblivion. So, Jesus didn’t die for our sins, he just had a really bad weekend for our sins.
Ransom - Now, I must ask the central question to this discussion: What’s the point? For the sake of argument, let’s concede that the original sin thing is real. But, we are told that Jesus died for our sins, and because of his sacrifice, he has made salvation available to humans. What kind of logic is this? What good can come from killing a person? On what planet does the murder of an innocent person fix anything? By way of analogy, imagine that you are in court, charged with murder. The judge finds you guilty, and sentences you to life in prison. Or, if you prefer, you could just kill your son, and they would call it all even. That’s the story of the Bible.
This story has more holes in it that Swiss cheese. But, I am overlooking what is probably the biggest flaw in the story. Let’s take a brief look at the life of Jesus.
The Bible says that Jesus was baptized in 29 AD (at age 30) and died in the year 33 AD (at 33 ½ years of age). So, he must have been born in the year 1 BC. Right?
Yet, Matthew says that Jesus was born "In the days of Herod" (Matt 2:1). As well, Matthew tells us that Herod issued the command to kill all babies under the age of 2, so that he could be sure to exterminate the Messiah. (Matt 2:16) Herod died in 4 BC. Therefore, Jesus must have been born between 4 and 6 BC. Hmmm, that’s a bit of a problem.
Then, Luke says that Jesus was born "When Cyrenius was governor of Syria." (Luke 2:2) Cyrenius served as governor of Syria on two occasions. The first time coincided with Herod’s reign, prior to 4 B.C., but there was no census at this time. The second time began in 7 A.D. There was a census during this period. Luke appears to have taken events from one period and transposed them into another period.
This is just one example of many inconsistencies in the story of Jesus. There are many others, ranging from the contradictory genealogies presented by Matthew and Luke, to the specific events of his life.
In addition, many events recorded in the Bible (such as Herod’s massacre of infant children) are not found in any secular records, even though the historians of the day were very anti-Herod and would have loved to ensconce something like this in the permanent record.
When you take these errors and omissions, and add on the mythological similarities to other ancient legends, you come to an inescapable conclusion: The majority of the Jesus myth is simply wishful thinking. The Bible account may be loosely based on an actual individual or composite of individuals, but the finished product is just a cartoon. Jesus is no more likely to return from the grave and redeem me of my sins than Spiderman.
So, I traveled home from the memorial with a lot of food for thought - no unleavened bread or wine, unfortunately, but more useful ideas than I ever thought I could take home from a kingdom hall.
PASCAL GOT IT WRONG

“What if you’re wrong?”

One of my loyal readers (OK, my only reader) recently posed this question to me. He was responding to the preceeding chapter, which pointed out some of the flaws in the Jesus myth. During my correspondence with him, it became apparent that he was just another fundamentalist, trolling for brimstone fodder for the Almighty. However, he did raise an interesting point - one that sounds good to a lot of people.

What he was describing is a very common piece of logic called “Pascal’s Wager”. It dates back to the seventeenth century, when it was put forward by the mathematician Blaise Pascal. Being a smart guy, he really should have known better, but let’s take a look at the logic and see where it goes wrong.

Basically, the logic goes like this: There are only two ways that a person can act - either with God, or against him. As well, God either exists or he doesn’t. So, here is a summary of all possible outcomes:

If you believe in God, and he exists, then you gain all.
If you believe in God, and he doesn’t exist, then nothing happens.
If you do not believe in God, and he exists, then you lose all.
If you do not believe in God, and he doesn’t exist, then nothing happens.

So, believing in God yields either positive or neutral results, while spurning God yields either negative or neutral results. Therefore, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the God hypothesis.

Sounds ironclad, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, there are some flaws in the logic.

False dichotomy - Belief in God is not a simple yes/no question. Most religions believe that only they provide the correct path to salvation, and all others will face eternal damnation. Muslims believe that all Christians are infidels. Hindus believe that Buddhists are wrong. And most branches of Christianity believe that the other sects are wrong. If I believe in God, I could choose any one of thousands of different religions and sects. If I choose the wrong one, I could support God, but still lose all. So, it’s not just a matter of believing in God or not believing in him. I must pick the right God out of a spectrum of thousands, most of which are intolerant of all other Gods - any wrong choice, and I’m toast.

Reduction to absurdity - Go back and reread my four “if” statements, substituting “Allah” for God. It works equally well. Now try it for Vishnu, Zeus, Baal, and Spiderman. The logic works just as well. I have everything to gain by worshipping Spiderman, and nothing to lose.

Incorrect assumptions - The logic assumes that if I worship a non-existent God, then nothing happens. This is not true. I must expend time, energy, and money to support my God. If he isn’t real, then I have just wasted my resources. And what does any one have that is more valuable than time? So, believing in a non-existent God is not neutral, it is negative. You must pay for it, and you lose.

Belief is not an investment - No one chooses their belief system by selling to the highest bidder. A person’s belief system is a product of their experience, knowledge, and logic. You do not pick beliefs. They develop spontaneously. Choosing a belief based on expediency is not belief at all, it is opportunism.

The odds are not equal - Implicit in Pascal’s logic is the assumption that the two hypotheses are roughly equal, so the individual might as well go with the one that yields the best results. This is not true. The likelihood of the vengeful God of ancient Middle Eastern sheepherders being the creator of the universe is infinitesimal.

I would like to conclude with an illustration.

My name is Fred. I am the Almighty of the universe. At the end of days I will reward my followers with eternal life and seventy-one virgins (I had a brief bidding war with Allah). Those who do not believe in me will suffer through an eternity of Survivor reruns. Can you really afford to not worship me?

And, as for me, I will worship Spiderman.

Over the years, I have run into numerous persons who have attempted to defend the Bible’s literal accuracy. These opponents have presented explanations that range in quality from truly inspired justifications to pitifully lame excuses.

For example, when one believer was confronted with the fact that the ancient temple was credited with containing enough raw materials for a building more than a thousand times its size, he replied, "Well, maybe it had a basement."

If you really want to believe in something, no matter how ridiculous, you can find a way. All you need is a little imagination, and the proper tools. So, in the interests of improving the debating quality of Biblical apologists, thereby providing the rest of us with a more sporting opponent, I have created a tool to assist them.

These eleven techiques are suitable for use, not only by Biblical apologists, but also by political propagandists, Mafia lawyers, and even errant husbands.

So, I proudly present, in a format suitable for clipping:

Excuse #1: The Bible was not speaking literally.
This is probably the most widely used method of excusing the Bible. For example, in Ezekiel chapter 29, the Bible prophesies that Egypt would be destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

Oops, that never happened. Therefore, this prophesy was symbolic. It didn't really mean that Egypt would be destroyed. It actually meant this: Since Egypt was a powerful nation of its day, it symbolized military might. Its foretold destruction meant that it was foolish for anyone to put their trust in military might.

So, whenever the Bible says something that is wrong, it can always be claimed that it was speaking symbolically. This excuse applies to hundreds, if not thousands, of Bible errors - and I am speaking literally, here.

Excuse #2: The Bible didn't really mean what it plainly said.
This excuse is very similar to the last one, but has a subtle difference. Instead of relying on symbolic interpretations, it basically says that the Bible uses unusual euphemisms.

For example, when the Bible says that Jephthah's daughter was offered up as a "burnt offering", this didn't mean that she became a human sacrifice. Since we all know that human sacrifices go against God's loving nature, it must mean something else. The phrase "burnt offering" must be a euphemism for some other sort of sacrifice. So, Jephthah's daughter must have become a servant in the temple, thereby sacrificing herself to God.

Here is another example. When God said to Adam, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die", and then Adam proceeded to live for 950 years, eventually dying of natural causes, well, God obviously didn't mean that Adam would die that day. He meant that he would begin to die that day. He would lose immortality that day, and his future death would be assured.

Excuse #3: Words were used differently in Bible times.
In the book of Daniel, on at least five occasions, the Bible refers to Belshazzar as the son of King Nebuchadnezzar. History shows that Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus, who was not related to Nebuchadnezzar, and ruled four kings later.

The explanation for this problem is very simple: in Bible times, the word “son” could refer to more than just the simple father-son relationship. In fact, I have seen this word interpreted by Biblical apologists as son, step-son, grandson, distant descendant, and unrelated successor.

This is a handy tool, but if it is really true, it seriously dilutes the message of the Bible, making it virtually meaningless. When the Bible says that Jesus was God’s son, what does it mean?

Excuse #4: There is a copyist’s error.
The Biblical account of David’s census sin is recorded in two places - 1 Chronicles chapter 21, and 2 Samuel chapter 24. These two accounts have numerous differences. For example, in one account, David buys a threshing floor for 50 shekels of silver. In the other account, the price is 600 shekels of gold. The explanation is that it is a simple copyist error.

This is a powerful tool and should be used with caution. The true Bible believer should admit to copyist errors very sparingly. After all, if there is one copyist error, there could be more, and there is no telling what fundamental scripture could actually turn out to be wrong. Besides, a copyist error is still an error in the Bible, and that’s impossible.

Excuse #5: History is wrong.
This is a rather bold statement, but I have seen it used many times. For example, the Bible story of the flood is contradicted by the written histories of several other civilizations that existed during the time period of the flood. So, since the Bible cannot be wrong, history must be wrong.

This explanation has been used to explain discrepancies in the length of the exile in Egypt and errors in the book of Daniel. In fact, some persons have even suggested that the prophecy of the destruction of Egypt actually came true - history just forgot to record it, or covered it up. Probably the most blatant claim of this type is the Jehovah’s Witness dating of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C. History clearly shows a date approximately 20 years later, but this doesn’t fit their chronology, so history must be wrong.

Excuse #6: One number includes another number.
Here is an example of what I mean:
After Jesus’ death, his tomb is visited by some of his followers who find that he is missing. How many followers were present when this happened? Well, John tells us that it was just one; Matthew says it was two; Mark lists three persons, and Luke lists three by name (not the same three names as Mark), and he alludes to more.

So, there you have it. The definitive answer is that Jesus’ tomb was visited by one, two, three, and many followers. Which one is right? Well, since the Bible is infallible, they are all right.

You see, if we assume that there were ten followers present, then it is correct to say that there was one person present (and another, and another…). The extra persons are just not named. Likewise, there were certainly two persons there - with the proviso that there were eight more who were not mentioned.

This is a very convenient way of disposing of numerical inconsistencies. Unfortunately, it creates some problems. The Bible says that there were twelve apostles. Using this logic, it is possible that there were actually 65 apostles, but the other 53 aren’t mentioned.

Imagine what life would be like if everyone spoke like this. A serial killer could testify in court that he killed one person, simply failing to mention the others. The weatherman could predict a rainfall of one inch prior to a hurricane. After all, if ten inches of rain falls, then certainly, there must be one inch somewhere in there.

So, when the Bible records a number, it might really mean any number larger than the one cited. In real life, who talks like this?

In fact, you can do something passively by failing to prevent it from happening. You can even be dead when it happens and still be credited with the action. This might seem rather confusing, so, here is an example of what I mean.

Matthew tells us that, after Judas died, the Chief Priests took his betrayal money and used it to buy a field (Matthew 27:6,7). Acts 1:18,19 tells us that Judas himself bought the field with this money. Which one is right? Well, in the infallible Bible, both are right. Biblical apologists say that since the money belonged to Judas, it could be said that he bought the field, even though someone else carried out the transaction and Judas was dead at the time.

This logic can be carried through to an even greater extreme. The Bible tells us that God killed King Saul. It also tells us that Saul committed suicide and was killed in battle. It can be argued that, by not preventing Saul’s death, God had, in fact, killed him.

So, when the Bible says that someone performed an act, it might mean something totally different from what you think.

Excuse #8: Everything is relative.
The book of Revelation ends with the phrase, “I am coming quickly”. Almost 2,000 years have passed since those words were written, yet there is still no sign of Jesus. Obviously, Jesus was just yanking our chain when he made this promise - unless you realize that time is very different for an immortal person. The Bible says that with God, a thousand years are as one day. So, Jesus has really only been gone about two days.

You will find this logic throughout the Bible. Whenever the Bible is grossly wrong in its time estimates, the claim is made that time is relative, and to an immortal person, every time period is short. However, if you apply this principle evenly, then the Bible’s prophesies and even it’s histories are meaningless. For example, did Methuselah really live to be 969 years old, or did he just have a really boring job and it seemed like a millennium?

Imagine what life would be like if everyone spoke like this. Measurements of long/short and early/late would depend on whether you were speaking from the perspective of a fruit fly or a mountain range. All time related words would need to be fixed to a specific point of reference. What if your wife told you to pick up your children right away, and you showed up five years late?

Really, when a statement is communicated, there are certain assumptions that are reasonable on the part of the receiver. If these assumptions are changed virtually at random, then speech has no real meaning. If the Bible’s words are this capricious, then it has no meaning, either.

Excuse #9: You can’t tell what a prophecy means until after it is fulfilled
In other words, whatever happens is what the Bible meant. This is quite possibly the stupidest statement that I have ever heard. Yet, I have personally seen this argument used on several occasions when defending apparent false Biblical prophesies.

The dictionary defines prophesy as: “To predict the future with certainty as if by divine inspiration.” If a prophesy cannot be understood until after it is fulfilled, then it is missing the elements of prediction, certainty, and future. Therefore, by definition, it is not a prophesy.

Excuse #10: If all else fails, change the Bible.
This is fairly drastic, and is only available to apologists with a lot of money. Nevertheless, it can be done.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have used this technique with great success. You see, they developed a lot of beautifully intricate doctrines, only to find that the pesky Bible doesn’t agree with them. So they published their own Bible, that corrects some of God’s mistakes.

Here is an example. Hebrews 12:23 makes reference to “the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven”, and to “the spirits of just men made perfect.” This is a thorny scripture for a group that does not believe in spirit life after death. So, they have changed this scripture in their Bible to say “the spiritual lives of good men”.

This technique can also be found in other translations to correct obvious errors in parallel accounts. A good example is the contradiction regarding who tempted David to take his census. One scripture says it was Satan, another says it was God. To fix this, one enterprising translation replaces the word “God” with the indefinite word “one”, explaining the reference to God in a footnote that is available only in its extended reference version. So, a person reading this version of the Bible would not even notice the error.

Excuse #11: The final cop out.
When every possible excuse fails, there is always one left: We don’t have enough information to reply to this problem, but we know that the Bible is correct in everything it says, so it must be right. The solution will be found eventually.

The apologist then goes on to cite an example of an apparent contradiction that turned out to be no contradiction at all. The Bible may have been exonerated by a new archeological find, or some other discovery. So, the reasoning goes, all other contradictions may similarly be explained in the future. We just need to have faith and wait.

This is a textbook example of circular reasoning. The Bible says it is right about everything, and since it is infallible, it must be right about this, too.

Certification
I conclude this list with my personal certification. I have seen every one of these arguments made in defense of the Bible. In fact, they have all been used many times. References can be provided upon request.

The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories

shamus100

Satanus

VM44

Nosferatu

Black Sheep

Black Sheep

processor

besty

Open mind

dgp

Share this