Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors

by JosephAlward 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

JosephAlward

During the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar (605 - 562 BC) the Babylonians conquered Syria and Palestine:
"And he carried away all Jerusalem:....none remained, save the poorest sort of people of the land ...Those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon." (2 Kings 24:14-15)
The captivity occurred in 598 BC, and many returned to Jerusalem when Cyrus captured Babylon and set them free in 538 BC. In the Old Testament books of Ezra and Nehemiah there are lists of the numbers returning in each family. Unfortunately for fundamentalists who believe there are no errors in the Bible, there are many discrepancies in these numbers; sometimes an Ezra figure is higher than the corresponding one from Nehemiah, other times the Ezra figure is lower.
Here are just three examples:
1. Arah family:
"The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five." (Ezra 2:5)
versus
"The children of Arah, six hundred fifty two " (Nehemiah 7:10).....
------
2. Azgad family:
"The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two." (Ezra 2:12)
versus
"The children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred twenty and two ." (Nehemiah 7:17)
------
3. Hashum family:
"The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three." (Ezra 2:19)
versus
"The children of Hashum, three hundred twenty and eight ." (Nehemiah 7:22)
------
Apologists sometimes claim that the figures Ezra quoted were taken at a different time than Nehemiah's, however, both Ezra and Nehemiah said that the whole congregation together was 42,360. (Ezra 2:64, and Nehemiah 7:66). The agreement between Ezra and Nehemiah about the total number of returnees is excellent evidence that the data used by Ezra and Nehemiah came from the same ultimate source, and that there was only one census, not two.
The conclusions seems inescapable: the Bible is in error.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
pomegranate

Joseph, this one is REALLY lame. Here's Joseph evidence:
>>The agreement between Ezra and Nehemiah about the total number of returnees is excellent evidence that the data used by Ezra and Nehemiah came from the same ultimate source<<
First, ALL the accounting of genealogies was done by Ezra, NOT Nehemiah. Nehemiah would have been referencing Ezra's documents. Ezra would have documented the Israelites in two stages. The FIRST (beginning) amount of families and things out of captivity into Jerusalem, and a LAST (final) amount of families and things into Jerusalem.
If you compare the two accounts fully, there are more differences between the two accounts than there is the same. HUGE differences in fact. There are even some families MISSING betwen the two accounts.
It is obvious that these genealogies were taken at diffent times.
Nehemiah gives us a clue as to which account record he was referencing from by his own words:
Neh 7:5
I found the genealogical record of those who had been the FIRST to return.
According to Nehemiah, he was referencing the document of the ones and things that had come back to Jerusalem FIRST.
How else can we prove that Nehemiah was referencing the earliest record of returnees from captivity BESIDES his own words???
Simple.
Money.
If Nehemiah was referencing the first coming of returnees, then there would be less money in the till at that time. As more came back, there would be an increase in money, right? Right.
NEHEMIAH's referencing the FIRST ones coming:
Neh 7:71-72
71 Some of the heads of the families gave to the treasury for the work 20,000 drachmas of gold and 2,200 minas of silver. 72 The total given by the rest of the people was 20,000 drachmas of gold, 2,000 minas of silver and 67 garments for priests.
EZRA's referencing the LAST ones coming:
Ezra 2:68-69
some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site. 69 According to their ability they gave to the treasury for this work 61,000 drachmas of gold, 5,000 minas of silver and 100 priestly garments.
Please note SUBSTATIALLY more money and stuff in the Ezra account. This was obviously the latter accounting as more stuff was aquired BY THE FAMILY HEADS donation, as they arrived.
Nehemiah references the FIRST ones and in his account and also mentions the final complete number of LAST ones to come in total, which agrees with Ezra's final accounting.
Larsguy

Sorry Alward, but you need an update. We know the Neo-Babylonian records were revised and the vAT4956 and SK400 now agree with the Biblical dating for this period which would date the return of the Jews in 455BCE not in 538BCE. So please note, per advanced research when you quote those dates you are IN ERROR.
However, it is your choice to accept these revised records in contradiction to the Bible. But please at least note that the Bible critically contradicts the secular chronology from this period at several points.
1. Zedekiah and the deportation of king Jehoichin are parallel. The 11th year of Zedekiah was the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar which is an 8-year difference, thus the 37th year of exile for Jehoiachin when Evil-Merodach became king would have corresponded to the 45th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Secular records reduce his rule to just 43 years.
2. The Bible claims that Egypt was to be desolated for 40 years. Records from Babylon indicate it was in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar that this invasion took place. But the reduced Babylonian period does not accommodate a 40-year desolation for Egypt since Egypt was back up and running in time to assist the Babylonians against the Medes!!! That is, dated per the revised dating, year 37 is 568BCE and 40 years later is 528BCE, meaning Egypt was still desolated some 10 years after the fall of Babylon? No hardly. But when the original chronology is used, which, per Josephus, introduces a 74-year period from the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar until the 1st of Cyrus, there's plenty of time for those 40 years to take place. The actual dating would have been 511BCE (per the double-dating in the VAT4956) to 471BCE, with Babylon falling in 462BCE, some nine years later. So there's no problem.
3. And finally, Zechariah and Josephus together are right in sync in confirming that the Jews were still in exile during the entire reign of Darius, the Mede, a king secular chronology eliminated in the revised records. Zechariah says that 70 years after the denunciation of the cities (destruction of Jerusalem) occurred in the 2nd year of Darius and 70 years after the mourning for Gedaliah occurred in the 4th year of Darius. But this was still while the Jews were in exile wondering when their seventy years were going to be up. It just so happens that since their 70 years, according to Josephus, didn't really begin until the last deportation in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, some 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem, that the Jews had two more years to go during the reign of Darius the Mede in his 4th year before being released. Of note, the Jews were not released in the first year of Darius the Mede, but in the first year of Cyrus the Persian; meaning, of course, that Darius the Mede ruled for six years while the Jews were still in exile before Cyrus came to the throne. But there is no problem here since the Bible SPECIFICALLY ends the 70 years when the "royalty of Persia" came to the throne, that is, distinguishing it from the "royalty of the Medes". So even though the Medes and the Persians overthrew Babylon together the first rulers over Babylon were the Medes, followed by the Persians six years later, and that's when they were released.
So as noted, believe what you want, but because of resent research, Biblicalists can ignore all the jive about the Neo-Babylonian dating now, and just for your information, therefore, all that dating has o be corrected. It is simply incompetent, even via Babylonian astronomical texts to date this period with the revised dating. Their own records now give us both the revised and original dating, the original dating totally agreeing with the Bible's chronology which would show the Neo-Babylonian period 26 years longer than the revised, shorter Neo-Babylonian period.
Sorry, this is non-negotiable. Present what information you wish, but by simply disagreeing without any credible, specific references will just be ignored by the advanced Biblicalists.
Thanks for keeping us posted on all the Biblical contradictions!
LG
JosephAlward

Re: Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors Oct 18, 2001 9:26:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph, this one is REALLY lame. Here's Joseph evidence:
>>The agreement between Ezra and Nehemiah about the total number of returnees is excellent evidence that the data used by Ezra and Nehemiah came from the same ultimate source<<
First, ALL the accounting of genealogies was done by Ezra, NOT Nehemiah. Nehemiah would have been referencing Ezra's documents. Ezra would have documented the Israelites in two stages. The FIRST (beginning) amount of families and things out of captivity into Jerusalem, and a LAST (final) amount of families and things into Jerusalem.
If you compare the two accounts fully, there are more differences between the two accounts than there is the same. HUGE differences in fact. There are even some families MISSING betwen the two accounts.
It is obvious that these genealogies were taken at diffent times.
Nehemiah gives us a clue as to which account record he was referencing from by his own words:
Neh 7:5
I found the genealogical record of those who had been the FIRST to return.
According to Nehemiah, he was referencing the document of the ones and things that had come back to Jerusalem FIRST.
How else can we prove that Nehemiah was referencing the earliest record of returnees from captivity BESIDES his own words???
Simple.
Money.
If Nehemiah was referencing the first coming of returnees, then there would be less money in the till at that time. As more came back, there would be an increase in money, right? Right.
NEHEMIAH's referencing the FIRST ones coming:
Neh 7:71-72
71 Some of the heads of the families gave to the treasury for the work 20,000 drachmas of gold and 2,200 minas of silver. 72 The total given by the rest of the people was 20,000 drachmas of gold, 2,000 minas of silver and 67 garments for priests.
EZRA's referencing the LAST ones coming:
Ezra 2:68-69
some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site. 69 According to their ability they gave to the treasury for this work 61,000 drachmas of gold, 5,000 minas of silver and 100 priestly garments.
Please note SUBSTATIALLY more money and stuff in the Ezra account. This was obviously the latter accounting as more stuff was aquired BY THE FAMILY HEADS donation, as they arrived.
Nehemiah references the FIRST ones
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
JosephAlward

Pom states that "It is obvious that these [censuses] were taken at different times."
If the censuses were taken at different times and of different groups of people, one would not expect that the two censuses would show any identical numbers. However, the figures given by Ezra and Nehemiah are IDENTICAL for more than a dozen families. To name a few: Parosh (2172), Shepthatiah (372), Elam (1254), Zaccai (760), Anathoth (128), Azmaveth (42).
The odds that these numbers are the same just by chance are impossibly low. Thus, it is clear that either Ezra was wrong, or Nehemiah was, or both of them were.

Furthermore, if it were true that Ezra and Nehemiah each report on different groups of returnees, then the numbers reported by each, taken together, should equal the grand total of 42,360 (Ezra 2:64); however, readers may verify for themselves that the number of returnees described Ezra is 29,818, while the number in Nehemiah is 31,089, for a total equalling 60,907.
Thus, it cannot be, as Pom claims, that there were two different censuses. Once again, we see that the Bible is in error.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
pomegranate

>>If the censuses were taken at different times and of different groups of people, one would not expect that the two censuses would show any identical numbers.<<
Why is that? Say one whole family left with the FIRST ones AND STAYED. They obviously would be counted in the first and last accounting, showing identical numbers. Not to difficult on the logic here.
>>However, the figures given by Ezra and Nehemiah are IDENTICAL for more than a dozen families. To name a few: Parosh (2172), Shepthatiah (372), Elam (1254), Zaccai (760), Anathoth (128), Azmaveth (42).<<
All of those families left RIGHT AWAY Einstein!! The first batch. All of them. Same numbers on accounting one as accounting two, because they all stayed put once they left captivity.
>>The odds that these numbers are the same just by chance are impossibly low. Thus, it is clear that either Ezra was wrong, or Nehemiah was, or both of them were.<<
This has nothing to do with chance or odds. Just when they left, and if they were ALL present for accounting one and accounting two. For example, The WHOLE Parosh family (2172) left captivity ALL AT THE SAME TIME with the FIRST returness. They ALL stayed put. Naturally the number would be the same on both accountings, the first returnees and the last accounting of returnees. Where are you coming from here?. You make no logical sense.
>>Furthermore, readers may verify for themselves that the actual total of the figures given by Ezra is 29,818, while the total in Nehemiah is 31,089, for a total equalling 60,907. But, this is not possible, since the total number of returnees was actually 42,360 (Ezra 2:64).<<
First off, no one can verify actual numbers of people in EITHER account because there are WHOLE divisions that were not given a number. Why do you leave out important information Joseph? Hiding something?
Neh 7:63-65
63 And from among the priests: the descendants of Hobaiah, Hakkoz and Barzillai (a man who had married a daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by that name). 64 These searched for their family records, but they could not find them and so were excluded from the priesthood as unclean.
No number on the ones above.
Second, why are you adding Ezra and Nehemiah's individual accountings together? That does NOTHING except double counting.
For example, the Parosh family you'd have 2172 x 2 because your adding them together twice from Ezra AND Nehemiah. Such would be the case WITH ALL the families when you do like you do and total the accountings together.
You know Joseph, this IS NOT hard math or logic. Why don't you pick YOUR BEST "contradiction" instead of these lamers.
JosephAlward

Pom indicated that (what he believes are) the "two" censuses were taken at different times; one was of the "first" returning group, and the other of the second returning group. If that was the scenario Pom was suggesting (it evidently is not), then--as I argued previously--it would have been highly unlikely to find the same number of people from each family returning in each of two returns.
Pom, please clarify your argument for me. In your post, “Re: Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors Oct 18, 2001 9:26:59 PM,” you indicated that you believed the Ezra referenced one group, while Nehemiah referenced another one:
“NEHEMIAH's referencing the FIRST ones coming: …..EZRA's referencing the LAST ones coming: “
Thus, I was led to believe that you were stating that Nehemiah’s numbers were only for those returning first, while Ezra’s were only for those returning last. If this is not what you mean, please explain completely, and unambiguously, what you believe happened.
Also explain please why Nehemiah--according to you--writes about the numbers in the first wave of returnees, but then concludes his census by giving the TOTAL number after (what you believe is) the “second” wave. Would not a writer inspired by an all-knowing god KNOW that his words would surely lead people reading only Ezra’s book that Ezra wanted the readers to believe that the number he gave--42,360--was the sum of all of the persons in the “first” wave? Why would an all-knowing god let his writer communicate information in such a confusing way? Surely such a god would have known how to guide his writers to communicate far more precisely, isn’t that true?
I’ll wait for clarification from you before I analyze further your attempted harmonization of the two censuses.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
pomegranate

>>Pom indicated that (what he believes are) the "two" censuses were taken at different times; one was of the "first" returning group, and the other of the second returning group. If that was the scenario Pom was suggesting (it evidently is not), then--as I argued previously--it would have been highly unlikely to find the same number of people from each family returning in each of two returns.<<
One return, two accountings. One accounting taken initially, another accounting taken after time had gone by. Example again, The Parosh family all left and were fully counted on both accountings. The Arah family went up from 652 intitially to 775. Meaning more arrived over time. Please note some went down over time, indicating death or an abandoning. Money build up is a proof of an earlier and latter accountings...
>>Pom, please clarify your argument for me. In your post, “Re: Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors Oct 18, 2001 9:26:59 PM,” you indicated that you believed the Ezra referenced one group, while Nehemiah referenced another one:
“NEHEMIAH's referencing the FIRST ones coming: …..EZRA's referencing the LAST ones coming: “<<
In other words...Everyone did not arrive at the same time. There was an initial leaving from captivity...and not all arrived at the same time. Then again, even after more arrived, some family numbers decreased between the two accountings, maybe for deaths, abandoning the work or a host of other reasons...Eample: Bebai family first had 628, but then decreased to 625.
>>Thus, I was led to believe that you were stating that Nehemiah’s numbers were only for those returning first, while Ezra’s were only for those returning last. If this is not what you mean, please explain completely, and unambiguously, what you believe happened.<<
One census taken by Ezra as the first groups arrive, another census taken by Ezra after time goes by. Nehemiah was referencing Ezra's first census...the first intial numbering of the people that arrived. Ezra's numbering is final numbering at the second census...the clue being greater monetary records.
Nehemiah account details Ezra's record of the numbers of the first ones upon arrival along with material posessions...
>>Also explain please why Nehemiah--according to you--writes about the numbers in the first wave of returnees, but then concludes his census by giving the TOTAL number after (what you believe is) the “second” wave.<<
Because I believe both "totals" given by both accounts were the number of the Israelites that left captivity and NOT the total number of arrivals. This number before leaving was a known constant of how many left captivity, which would have been known and documented before leaving.
How else could one verify HOW MANY made the journey and arrived for the knowledge of knowing what happened to the people during this time of returning?
Company count before you leave. (Neh 7:66, Ezra 2:64)
Company count when you first arrive. (Neh 7:5)
Count count again later as a final. (Ezra 2:1)
That's how I see it.
How ever one sees these accounts, there are SO MANY other variables that could be put into this equation to explain the numbers. Deaths, births, abandoning, some never left, some never arrived...blah blah blah...
Personally, I see much more in these two accounts other than different numbers. Actually the differing numbers reinforce my faith in a very powerful way. Chapter 2...chapter 7, the same topic, yet different.
27.
JosephAlward

As Pom sees it, the completed census of the return to Jerusalem of the Babylonian captives is reported in Ezra 2:1-70,while Nehemiah reports incomplete figures from Ezra's census in progress.
This doesn't make sense. Why would it matter to God that his Bible readers know what the uncompleted census was?
Consider the 2000 Census. Would it make sense for anyone to record for historical purposes the various county, state, and country figures before the census was over? What historian in his right mind would tell his readers that the census-in-progress, with six months left to count, was 237,456,123 citizens? Who would care? All that matters is how many citizens there REALLY are, not how many had been counted half way through the census, right?
Thus, it doesn't make any sense at all that an all-knowing god would have inspired Nehemiah to waste two pages of God's Bible telling readers what the uncompleted "vote-count" was; it was then, and is now, something of zero value and zero importance.
Thus, God must NOT have inspired Nehemiah to do what he did.
Why are so many of the family figures identical and the wording used to describe these figures almost identical? Is it not reasonable to imagine that what happened is that Nehemiah and Ezra were each reporting the final census figures using flawed copies of a third party's data (or else Nehemiah was using a flawed copy of Ezra's data)?
Finally, I note that Pom didn't respond to my query in an earlier post. If Nehemiah wanted his readers to know that his figures were incomplete, why--if he was guided to write flawlessly by an all-powerful god--didn't he tell the reader this important information?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
pomegranate

>>As Pom sees it, the completed census of the return to Jerusalem of the Babylonian captives is reported in Ezra 2:1-70,while Nehemiah reports incomplete figures from Ezra's census in progress. This doesn't make sense. Why would it matter to God that his Bible readers know what the incompleted census was?<<
The census taking was done to keep track of the people.
>>Consider the 2000 Census. Would it make sense for anyone to record for historical purposes the various county, state, and country figures before the census was over? What historian in his right mind would tell his readers that the census-in-progress, with six months left to count, was 237,456,123 citizens? Who would care? All that matters is how many citizens there REALLY are, not how many had been counted half way through the census, right?<<
Because the journey from captivity was not like getting in your car and heading out. If the returnees left captivity, they walked and rode on animals across dangerous conditions. The leadership obviously took two accountings. One when the leadership immediately got there and another one some time afterward to take into account stragglers and the like. Who would care? The men God put in charge of overseeing his people.
>>Thus, it doesn't make any sense at all that an all-knowing god would have inspired Nehemiah to waste two pages of God's Bible telling readers what the incompleted "vote-count" was; it was then, and is now, something of zero value and zero importance.<<
Sure it would. It showed the concern of the leadership God had appointed over Israel, to keep track of ALL his people during a dangerous time of going from point A to point B.
>>Thus, God must NOT have inspired Nehemiah to do what he did.<<
You arguement has no merit to me. The leadership of Israel would certainly have counted as many times as deemed necessary to satisfy their concern of ALL the company of Israel arriving safely. It is all very simple...and a very trivial matter.
>>Why are so many of the family figures identical and the wording used to describe these figures almost identical?<<
Why are so many different and the wording different? Because they were counted twice.
>>Is it not reasonable to imagine that what happened is that Nehemiah and Ezra were each reporting the final census figures using flawed copies of a third party's data (or else Nehemiah was using a flawed copy of Ezra's data)?<<
It is just as reasonable to imagine two accountings at two different times. The best proof is the difference in money. More time goes by, the more people arrive, the more money they donate to the rebuilding effort.
>>Finally, I note that Pom didn't respond to my query in an earlier post. If Nehemiah wanted his readers to know that his figures were incomplete, why--if he was guided to write flawlessly by an all-powerful god--didn't he tell the reader this important information?<<
I most certainly did...
Of which Nehemiah INFORMED THE READER OF WHY he was referencing genealogical documents for a specific purpose:
Neh 7:4
4 Now the city was large and spacious, but there were few people in it, and the houses had not yet been rebuilt.
WHERE'S ALL THE PEOPLE???
Neh 7:4-5
5 So my God put it into my heart to assemble the nobles, the officials and the common people for registration by families. I found the genealogical record of those who had been the first to return.
All we have here is God telling Nehemiah to assemble so as to registrate. He then finds a document of genealogies of the first ones to return. Since the document is called a record of the FIRST ones returning, it would with no difficulty impart that there must have been some returning AFTER the first ones to return. Otherwise first ones returning has no meaning. He was obviously comparing the first ones genealogies document with the ones who were there. There was a problem that Nehemiah was trying to figure out, and AGAIN what was that?
Neh 7:4
4 Now the city was large and spacious, but there were few people in it, and the houses had not yet been rebuilt.
Where's all the people??? What was God's answer?
Neh 7:4-5
5 So my God put it into my heart to assemble the nobles, the officials and the common people for registration by families. I found the genealogical record of those who had been the first to return.
So Nehemiah could start identifying WHO's MISSING.
Joseph, this is really getting old, ya know?

Return from Babylon: More Bible Errors

Share this