Name a few errors in the bible

by JH 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • hooberus
  • Faraon
    :Faraon said:1) There is such a thing as consent by keeping quiet! There is nothing there that shows that Saul was reprimanded for doing so. A man is murdered for picking sticks on a Sabbath, but Saul gets away with seeing a witch for advice. Apparently it is a greater sin to pick up sticks on a Sabbath than to see a witch.
    Shortly after Saul consulted the witch, he lost his kingdom. While there were other acts of disobedience on his part, the act of consulting the witch surly was one of the reasons for the loss as it was pronounced (by Samuel) immediately during the encounter.

    1 Samuel Chapter 28

    [16] Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?
    [17] And the LORD hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David:
    [18] Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this thing unto thee this day.

    Where does it say that Saul was punished for consulting a witch?

    I’ll let the Skeptics site answer it.

    28:8-19 Saul visits a woman with a "familiar spirit" and she brings Samuel back from the dead. Samuel once again explains that God is angry at Saul for not killing all of the Amelekites. He says God is going to deliver all of Israel into the hands of the Philistines. (Since Saul refused to slaughter innocent people, God will slaughter the Israelites. Fair is fair.)

    To answer your second statement

    3) The bible (and again you are saying that the only true god is the lying, blood thirsty god of the bible) supports incest by calling Lot just and blessing Abraham’s incestual relationship by procreating a son by his sister. That is, unless his son by Sarah was impregnated by Jehovah when he ate with Abraham in the desert. Anyway he had sex with Sarah.

    The Bible does not say that Lot being involved in incest is the reason why he is called "just". He was called just for believiing in God, the same as Abraham was. There was no Biblical command against marying a half-sister then. Adam and Eve's sons and daughters had to marry each other in order to produce the human race.

    James 2:19

    Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

    So the devils believe there is one god, because of this they are also just, and the bible calls them so?

    Is something wrong or right just because the Jewish god proclaims it so?

    If there was something wrong with incest, it should’ve been wrong before and after the Jewish Law. Same if it was right. Didn’t Adam, Eve and their children know right from wrong after eating the forbidden fruit?

    Following your logic, Cain should’ve not being punished because it had not been forbidden to kill.

    This god murdered most of humanity and the animals in the flood, but there were no laws from him as to behavior.

    Genesis 6:5-7 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

    So Jehovah destroys man because his imagination is evil, but he repents because his imagination is evil, and promises not to do it again.

    Yeah, I know. No one can understand the thoughts of a PMS free, all loving god. If he murders everyone, it’s OK, if he promises not to do it again, it’s OK too. All we have to do is to kill a bunch of animals and burn them. That will make him forget his anger (There must not been any Midol in those days).

  • Faraon


    Who is the first and the last???

    That's easy: I was the first one in my life to be born. I will be the last to die in my lifetime.


    A weirder one is this

    Gen 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

    How could the sun, moon, and the stars have been created on the fourth day if seasons, days, and years were created (marked)on the fourth day to mark the days? In other words, there were days before there were days. Jehovah must live in a TARDIS (a little Dr. Who humor).

    Sorry, I should've said: the gods live in a TARDIS since Yaweh only appears on the second chapter. The first chapter only uses elohim, which, as Simon said, should be translated godS (plural)

    Another thing to consider is that there is always day in the opposite side of Earth of a night. Obviously these people never thought of the Earth being spherical.


    Where did you get this information? I checked Exodus 22:18 in the Strong’s concordance 03784, and indeed it refers to a witch.

    I also checked a Jewish bible and it stated : Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live. Could it be that someone got a hold of a Chaldean dictionary or something like that and translated it that way?

  • hooberus

    Earlier the site for the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" was Given. The following is a response to several of the points on the site by JP Holding.

  • Rado Vleugel
    Rado Vleugel

    These two words: "God created"

    Rado Vleugel

  • Faraon


    Earlier the site for the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" was Given. The following is a response to several of the points on the site by JP Holding.

    I read your site, for about half-an-hour and I almost puked.


    Right from the beginning on Amos (Acts could not be linked) I found the following rebuttals from Holdings:

    1:4 - 2:2 The divine pyromaniac threatens to "send fire unto" Hazael, Gaza, Teman, Rabbah, and Moab.

    Just the normal course of ancient warfare -- I guess that makes us "shootomaniacs" and "bombomaniacs"...

    Holdings compares himself and other people with the “divine pyromaniac”. It is not the same to compare people with a supposedly loving god.

    1:9 This is about as close to the Bible saying "slavery is wrong" as you'll get. God threatens to destroy Tyrus for, in part, selling slaves to Edom. But, it is unclear if Tyrus will be destroyed because of this, or because these particular slaves in some way violated the "brotherly covenant."

    Doesn't matter anyway. As noted here.

    That link took me to this statement from his site.

    it took theologians and activists 1900 years to finally convince Christendom of the moral bankruptcy of slavery, and frankly, from a perspective of exegesis and Biblical theology, the fire-eaters had a better argument in ante-bellum America than the abolitionists, largely due to the statements made by Paul in Ephesians and Philemon.

    Was it the theologians or the governments who made those decisions? Read your history.

    The third point takes us to another link, which avers:

    Politically the Canaanites were aggressive and warlike. Religiously we have this data:

    ...the list of Canaanite "religious" practices included:

    Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)



    Homosexual practices

    Cultic prostitution--both male and female

    Oh, really?

    According to the bible, ALL of these things, with the possible exception of bestiality took place in Israel. Even Salomon’s temple was built with room for both male and female prostitutes, but their money was taken from them by the priests. What made Israel different from the Canaanites then?

    Who are these apologists trying to fool?

    By the way, thanks for the tip on the book Ken’s Guide to the Bible, which I found following the links.

  • Kenneson


  • Kenneson


    Let me try again. Sorry.

    On the question of slavery. I have come to realize that the slavery of the O.T. and that of the N.T. does not equate the type of slavery (slave trade) that was practiced in the New World (including America). The Bible does not condone the latter nor condemns the former.

  • Faraon


    On the question of slavery. I have come to realize that the slavery of the O.T. and that of the N.T. does not equate the type of slavery (slave trade) that was practiced in the New World (including America). The Bible does not condone the latter nor condemns the former.

    Will it be fair to say then that the bible condones the former but condemns the later?

    And respectfully I disagree. I came to the conclusion that they are very similar. Perhaps because the NW was under Christian rules.

    To begin with, neither white or Native Americans (whether Aztecs, Navaho, or Inca) were forced into slavery. Just like the Hebrew people, they could be pressed as indentured servitude for a number of years. See the Encomiendas in Mexico. The reason that slavery was abolished in Mexico earlier than in the US is that only pure black africans could be slaves. Even someone with 1/64 non-black blood and 63/64 black could not be a slave. Blacks started marrying native indians so their children would be free. Two of the greatest Mexican Independence heroes, Vicente Guerrero and Maria Morelos y Pavon had a large blood lineage. Vicente Guerrero made sure slavery was abolished as soon as the independence of Mexico was signed in 1921.

    Blacks, on the other hand, like the "people of the nations" in the bible, were pressed into slavery forever in all of the Americas.

    Just like in Israel, there were laws against wantomly killing slaves in the US, but even after blacks were freed in the U.S.... Tell me, when was the first time that a white person was sentenced to death for the killing of a black one?

    Not all slaves were treated badly in America, some worked in the homes, and some even had trades. That does not excuse the institution of slavery. Much less in the bible, which by condoning such repugnant institution degrades a true loving god, in case there is one.

    The ones that came a little bit better in the America's were the white women, which in the case of their Jewish counterparts were owned forever by other Jews. If a man was stupid enough to marry a woman owned by another Jew and have children with her, he would have to have to make a hole in his ear and became a slave forever so that he could stay with them. His only option would be to regain his freedom, and bargain with the owner so that he could purchase his own children. No such option was left open to Non-Jewish males.

    A theologian is like a blind person in a dark room searching for a black cat which isn't there - and finding it!

  • Kenneson


    To suggest that all Christians were in favor of the institution of slavery that existed in the New World is certainly not accurate. They considered it a mutant or deviation from the Biblical "slavery." Countless popes spoke out against it, but to deaf ears. Also, did you ever hear of Bartolome de Las Casas? An interesting article on what some Christians did to end slavery can be read at

Share this