OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Twelve Bible Errors

Entry 1362, on 2012-02-17 at 20:00:42 (Rating 3, Religion)

In a recent religious discussion I came to the point where the accuracy of the Bible was under examination. I asked if my opponent would like to see a dozen errors on the first page so I thought that maybe it would be a good idea to actually go through the first page and find those dozen errors before I was challenged on the claim!

What actually the "first page" is will depend on the version and form of the particular Bible in question so I thought it would be easier to look at the first chapter (even though those were never in the original material the Bible was compiled from). So here is my analysis and criticism of that chapter...

Quote: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Interpretation: The Earth was the first thing created, before all other objects, such as the Sun and other stars. What "heaven" means here is debatable but also largely irrelevant because I am concentrating on the Earth.

Conclusion: The Earth has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be much younger than the Universe as a whole and that includes many stars and other objects. Multiple techniques involving radioactive isotope dating, study of sediments, models of solar system formation, and many others, all agree. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and the Universe as a whole about 13.7 billion. Many stars are far older than the Earth. The first line in the Bible is wrong, and there is no reasonable doubt.

Quote: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Interpretation: Some people interpret this as something other than the literal interpretation of the word "light" but the consensus seems to be that that is just retrofitting the original meaning to fit the newly established facts.

Conclusion: Note that light is being created before the Sun and stars. What is this light? And why did it not exist before the Earth was formed? To say that light was formed after the Earth and before the Sun and stars is wrong beyond any reasonable doubt.

Quote: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

Interpretation: This clearly shows that the light mentioned above is the standard meaning of the word, confirming that it is wrong. Also, how could the light exist before it was divided from night?

Conclusion: The idea that light was created then divided from darkness is meaningless.

Quote: And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Interpretation: What the "day" is here is open to debate. Some people say it is a literal period of 24 hours, others say it is a thousand years (and reference a quote elsewhere which says a day is like a thousand years to God), and others claim it is an indeterminate amount of time.

Conclusion If the word "day" is a literal day (or even a thousand years) then it is clearly wrong because these events took far longer. If it is any fixed time it is also wrong. Even if it a totally arbitrary time then the sequence is wrong, so there is really no way out of this problem for believers.

Quote: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Interpretation: This clearly refers to the land areas of the Earth appearing from water which covered the whole surface of the planet.

Conclusion: The Earth was not originally covered with water. This has been established by many independent studies. The Earth was originally too hot to hold liquid water and most of the water was probably delivered through later bombardment of comets.

Quote: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Interpretation: Grasses and other plants which use seed and fruit for propagation were created next.

Conclusion: All the evidence indicates this is wrong. Plants only make fruit to attract animals so why would these plants exist first? Also studies of fossils and independent gene sequencing both show that many forms of life existed billions of years before the advanced plant life mentioned here.

Quote: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years...

Interpretation: This clearly refers to the stars which seem to be created after the Earth but before the Sun and Moon.

Conclusion: There is no doubt that stars existed before the Earth and certainly a long time before plants mentioned previously. Stars have been observed which are 10 billion light years away. Their light has been travelling for twice the age of the Earth. There is no reasonable doubt that this verse is wrong.

Quote: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Interpretation: This obviously refers to the Sun and Moon. The stars are also mentioned again (as if they hadn't already been created earlier) but I will just assume this is just another example of the incredibly poor narrative quality of the Bible.

Conclusion: The Sun and Moon, and the Earth were all formed at about the same time and billions of years after the universe and oldest stars. There is little doubt that this is wrong.

Quote: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales...

Interpretation: This is suggesting that sea life and birds were created at the same time. It also clearly mentions whales as a specific example of sea life.

Conclusion: Again the timing is all mixed up. Whales evolved billions of years after the earliest sea life. And birds are one of the newest types of life and also appeared much later (they evolved from a type of dinosaur).

Quote: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Interpretation: This seems to refer to life on land in general.

Conclusion: Again the sequence of the order of appearance of different types of life is hopelessly confused.

Quote: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Interpretation: What making man in God's image means here is debated. Presumably it doesn't literally mean a physical resemblance but we can never know for sure.

Conclusion: Evolution is a fact. Some of the details of the exact mechanisms are still being debated but evolution is what lead to humans appearing on Earth. Any suggestion otherwise is ridiculous.

Quote: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Interpretation: Again the interpretation of "image" is unknown but he created both sexes which complicates the whole issue further.

Conclusion: The whole creation sequence is mixed up beyond any hope of it ever being fixed. Not only that but the re-iteration of the myth in Genesis 2 is contradictory.

So those are my 12 errors in chapter 1. I could have looked for finer details and criticised those as well and I could have made theological or philosophical objections to a lot of this material (such as should man really have total dominion over all other life forms) but I just kept to the established scientific facts.

Anyone who thinks the Bible is a book of facts is living in a dream world. It's full of errors, it's badly written, and it's largely useless as a guide to modern life in any form. But that's exactly what we would expect from a book composed of various myths created by primitive desert nomads thousands of years ago.

Comment 1 (2989) by Rob on 2012-02-26 at 21:10:47: (view recent only)

Oh my God... you are so going to hell. Don't you realize you are just supposed to believe and then rationalize, not analyze?

Comment 2 (2990) by OJB on 2012-02-27 at 08:30:35:

Actually I think Hell would be not such a bad place. I think the Devil has been given a really bad reputation. Look at the Bible: how many innocent deaths was he responsible for? Zero. And how about God: depending on your interpretation hundreds of thousands or millions.

So I think Hell seems like a nice place to get away from a really horrible god. In fact many Christians say the greatest punishment in Hell is being separated from God. I say bring it on!

Comment 3 (2991) by Anonymous on 2012-02-28 at 13:29:00:

This is a typical arrogant attitude often seen with atheists who have turned their back on the facts. Science doesn't know everything does it. Why do you think you know more than what Christians have known for thousands of years. God is just and can do what he likes and the opinion of people who turn their back on him doesn't matter.

Comment 4 (2992) by OJB on 2012-02-28 at 21:52:37:

Instead of dismissing my opinion as "arrogant" and suggesting I have "ignored the facts" why not specifically say where I am wrong? Is it not true (according to the Old Testament) that God killed many people and the devil killed none? And how would we really know that (assuming he even existed) God hasn't decided us into following him? Surely it is possible.

Comment 5 (2995) by Rob A. on 2012-03-01 at 14:22:13:

Interesting how anonymous doesn't distinguish between "know" and "believe".

Comment 6 (2996) by OJB on 2012-03-01 at 20:13:45:

Yes, it's so ironic that they accuse me of being arrogant yet they are so insistent that their opinions, based on no facts at all, should be taken seriously and treated as the truth. That is real arrogance.

Comment 7 (3377) by Carlos on 2012-11-27 at 09:45:08:

Hey twelve errors. I see errors on your errors because you are adding your unbelieving Opinion. you said in Genesis 1:1 that the earth and heaven were created at the same time . Well that is not what it truely mean. In Hebrews 8:5 it clearly explan this earth is a copy of heaven by comun sense in order to have a copy there has to be the original . The original was made first and from that a copy can be made like wise the heaven (universe) was made first after that the Earth . 2and you think tha light is literal we need to see how the bible Explains that light in Genesis1:3 . In 2Corinthians 4:6 the light written in Genesis1:3 is not literal light . Light in the bible means knowledge of God .1rst day people started to know the existens of God. A day in the Bible can be see as 1year or 1000years in the Bible (Ezekiel 4:6) (2Peter3:8) it cant be a literal day because that is not how the Bible Explanation. One point you are misunderstanding God God created the heavens and the earth first Genesis1:1 this is litaral heaven and earth . The next six days is not literal creation (Genesis 1:3-31) this is a Spiritual creation from adam and eve till the last day(Judgment day) from adam and eve to our time there has ben 6000 years . Biologically adam and eve were not the first humans who walk on Earth . But in the Bible say they were the first ones human in the bible means they were the first ones to know the Existence of God

Comment 8 (3378) by OJB on 2012-11-27 at 09:45:19:

My �unbelieving opinion� is also the belief of many Christians who take the Bible very seriously! I know you can twist the different parts of the Bible around to mean anything you want but the interpretation I gave in the original post is the one most fundamentalists accept. This is the problem when you take a book of myth as if it was literally true: you can get any answer you want. Maybe that�s why there are over 20,000 different sects of Christianity!

Comment 9 (3444) by Sidwell Swate on 2013-03-09 at 10:35:05:

I think all your comments do not make justice to the truth you trie to relate. Science is not 100% accurate and radio carbonoxydated isotope is man made, programmed with human principles which can make a mistake.

GEORGES LEMA�TRE school of thought on the age of the planet based on his theories is iknowledgeable about the monogenes of the universe He�s just guessing just like you.

GENESIS 1:1 is a narration of the origins written in the language ancient to English language on tablets, papyri, codex and parchments. Then you come try play smart.GO make a research. Vershit vara Elehim et Hashamayim (HEAVENS (SKY without bounties) ve�et ha haArets

Comment 10 (3445) by OJB on 2013-03-09 at 10:35:44:

I agree, science is not 100% accurate. It makes mistakes. But it is by far the best system we have ever created to discover the truth and we should accept its findings unless there is *very* good evidence to the contrary.

Genesis is an old story created by desert nomads who had no idea at all about how the universe really began. It has no merit whatsoever as a source of truth, although it is an amusing myth.
I hope I answered your points OK. I�m guessing English is your second language!

Comment 11 (4592) by Sidwell Swate on 2016-10-26 at 20:39:30:

Opinions more likely seem to be true. I guess that you are making use of the bigban magnifying class, and English gramma to be far superior than the HEBREW writings.

Comment 12 (4593) by Derek Ramsey on 2016-10-26 at 20:40:39:

A relatively minor critique: Genesis 1:1 is a merism. It is a common biblical figure of speech. Day 1 doesn�t start until verse 3. There is nothing grammatically or structurally to suggest that verses 1 and 2 are in any way part of the time frame of the �narrative� account that follows. The first two versions are in an indeterminate time period. Obviously there are plenty of people who do believe that �Day One� begins at Genesis 1:1, but it�s pretty obvious just from a cursory glance that this is not the case.

The work �Without Form and Void� by Arthur C. Custance suggests that the first two verses actually describe an initial creation, followed by a ruin, followed by the normal creation story. In other words, a completely separate set of creation events. I only just discovered this book myself, but will now have to read the whole thing because it implies that the earth came to be, was destroyed in a major calamity, and then had to be reformed. As I look over the work, it appears he addresses poc-hoc rationalization as well.

Reference here.

Comment 13 (4594) by OJB on 2016-10-26 at 20:41:06:

If you were deliberately making silly statements and referring me to nonsensical material just to get a reaction again, then you have succeeded! :) �

I think my point was that the verse states that the heaven and Earth were created at the same time and the stars much later. The whole thing is totally absurd. It�s just a primitive myth and reading anything into it is ridiculous. Even your arbitrary rationalisations can�t rescue it. And that silly book is a total waste of time. It�s like analysing a fairy story and expecting to get meaning. Just insulting to anyone�s intelligence!

Comment 14 (4595) by Derek Ramsey on 2016-10-26 at 20:41:41:

You seem to completely miss the point whenever I cite an external source. Very interesting trend.

1) Genesis 1:1-2 is a different context than the rest of the passage. The merism includes both earth and stars. It is not a chronological statement. The interpretation you gave is as nonsensical as the fairy tale you are excoriating. It�s basically a straw man. Point #2 below completely obliterates that interpretation as well.

2) The alternative view is a historically accurate [mythical] tale. At least parts of the view date back to at least the second century B.C. Change the sense of �was� to �had become�, and the whole tenor of the passage changes. Suddenly the earth was created, destroyed in a major calamity (external Jewish tradition suggests it was falling stars) and the standard creation myth begins as a rebuild. A number of the apparent difficulties you list in this post just disappear.

It isn�t that I think the book is great (I have not read it yet) or that I am trying to convince you that the creation myth isn�t mythical, but that in the only 5 minutes of research I did to point out the flaw in your opening objection, I found this book that appears to refute your entire post. Maybe you should reconsider trying to refute fairy tales so I don�t have to refute your fairy tale refutations.

Comment 15 (4596) by OJB on 2016-10-26 at 20:42:16:

Well that isn�t really research because you are just replacing one myth with another. There is no way that any remotely reasonable interpretation of Genesis can possibly fit the reality.

Here�s what really happened�
13.7 billion ya: universe begins in a hot Big Bang, no stars, planets, nothing.
About 300,000 years later: Normal matter and the first stars
4.5 billion ya: Sun and Earth formed.
A bit later: Moon formed, probably after a collision.
Water arrives on Earth, maybe from comets.
3 billion ya: Earliest forms of life
After that, life forms evolve in this order: unicellular life, simple plants, sea animals, land animals, dinosaurs, mammals, birds, humans.

I�m doing all this for memory so I might be not 100% in various places, but you can see that it really doesn�t fit Genesis at all.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.