Anonymous said:

November 18, 2008 @ 7:57 am

Owned.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Scopey said:

November 18, 2008 @ 8:04 am

Som of these are taken out of context:

“God was pleased with his creation. Gen.1:31.
God was not pleased with his creation. Gen.6:6.”

“Gen 6:5 The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.”

So God was pleased with what he had created initially, but became displeased later on when humans started being wicked. I see no contradiction in this.

[Reply to This Comment]

  jkillah1 said:

November 18, 2008 @ 8:05 am

I like these, but a few of them appear to be intentionally misleading. Some of them are listed as sperate and contradicting, but they might have both happened. Also, if there is enough time then situations may have changed. Of course, there are many that there is no explanation for.

[Reply to This Comment]

  beline said:

November 18, 2008 @ 8:25 am

Have you really found out all these by yourself?!

[Reply to This Comment]

  Bryan said:

November 18, 2008 @ 8:32 am

Hey so i looked at one of your arguments..#3 about the pbirds

so what version are you using? I’m looking at NIV and KJV and what you said is either misinformed or a lie

here are the verses in question

Gen 1:20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”

Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

so after looking at those two verses. where does it says that god created birds frmo water?

This is NIV, which is considered the mosted trusted/authentic translation from teh old hebrew/greek/latin

since that is debunked can you please now remove that form the list?

It’s easy to present a giant list of stuff - it’s even easier to look at one of your points randomly and debunk it right away

[Reply to This Comment]

  didi said:

November 18, 2008 @ 9:06 am

another reason to be atheist….

[Reply to This Comment]

  Grae said:

November 18, 2008 @ 9:11 am

While I am an atheist and I do agree that the Bible is not a perfect book, to call it poorly written is just not fair. Nor is it fair to say that it has little historical use. Can we use it as a direct chronicle for history? No. Can we use it for cross-cultural comparisons of settings and events going on at the time of its writing among its people? Absolutely. The Bible is an extremely fascinating work from an academic perspective, and I would indeed argue that put into its historical framework (considering its writers and its time), it is an exceptionally versatile and well-formed book. Certainly in terms of the Old Testament, the contradictions are intended by the editors of the canon, and the same can be argued for the editors of the New (indeed, the Gospels are each targeted at different audiences for conversion, be they Jews, Gentiles, or Women). Additionally, some of the contradictions listed here are not contradictions in fairly reasonable interpretations (again, historical context and comprehension of the original language is helpful in determining what is reasonable). I do thoroughly believe that as a text the Bible deserves respect and scholarship.

However… Fundamentalists can not be allowed to force their views into the science classroom or into a doctor’s room, and obviously to anybody with even an inkling of critical thought (an education helps too) the Bible is not factual. To that end, this list is useful. I just think that it is unnecessarily derisive to a surprisingly good book to call it poorly written and mostly ahistorical (events aside, views of the different writer groups are preserved). That’s all.

By the way, in addition to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, I would recommend having on hand a religious study Bible. Many of the best arguments against fundamentalists involve thorough depth of knowledge of history and language. Alternate translations are additionally pretty interesting, such as The Book of J, which offers a totally different view of the Jahwist stories.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Knelia said:

November 18, 2008 @ 9:23 am

As you mention in your introduction: ‘the bible is simply a poorly written book’. May I add: written by humans, writing down what they thought was real and/or important at the time of writing (the same of course goes for other socalled holy books).
Keeping that in mind, I cannot consider the bible (or quotes from it) to be a valid means to prove or ‘unprove’ anything. That would, to me, be using the same ‘weapons’ as Jehova witnesses, ripping pieces of text out of their context.

Religion (or atheism, for that matter), if one is inclined to it or needs it as a plan for life, does not depend on, nor is its impact on one’s life lessened by, logic mistakes or contradictions in books.
Both are a way of seeing and experiencing life, and sometimes you have a good day, sometimes a not so good day.

JMO

That said, have a good day !

[Reply to This Comment]

  Hal Freeman said:

November 18, 2008 @ 9:34 am

I wanted to to say many things to this posting, none of which would do any good of even trying to explain to someone so blind as yourself. You sir can never understand the bible it is your curse in life and that is something you will have to deal with, will you always be blind I am not sure but the bible never ever contradicts itself. What you have take here is the bible out of context to fit your own need and desires. Could I try and counter your writings here I am sure of that but will they do anyone justice? I can tell you if you have read the bible and prayed to G’d for understanding then the bible will be open up to you and you will see the truth of it. I only read the KJV of the bible because you are correct people are taking the book and re-creating it in there own image.

As for Adam eating of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, that he shall surly die, you sir will never understand this passage because you where thinking he would die a physical death, but if you read on and know G’ds word you would know it was a spiritual death that was bestowed upon mankind and this is the reason you don’t understand the bible now, your dead! You have been dead from the day of your birth and until you have come to the full knowledge that life without Jesus you will never know the bible. I take comfort in knowing that you as a heather will never understand G’ds word! Because of this writing you will only bring Christians closer to G’d because we know the meaning’s that you have outlined here in your writings and to know you are clues only means it works!!!

How amazing is G’d to have you write these things with no understanding it truly amazes me even today. I think you for this writing and I will add you to my prayers, that G’d will show you mercy and grant you some understanding to his word.

Keep up the work, for you will inspire those that don’t believe to keep on and those that do to insure there faith in Christ our Lord and Savior forever, Amen.

I know, your still confused! But this message that I am writing wasn’t for you sir.

[Reply to This Comment]

  S. E. said:

November 18, 2008 @ 9:51 am

It amazes me how many people that don’t believe in God feel the need to prove he doesn’t exist. I also think it funny that people who don’t believe in God have no problem with Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other demon Gods. Why do people leave all other religions alone except the one involving the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? The one that all the others have counterfeit? All other Gods and religions are demon based and as long as they have you believing in something other than God or nothing at all - they are doing their job to deceive you. If you truly don’t believe that God is real and think we are all stupid - so what?!?!?! If you were right and there wasn’t a God then when we all die that would be the end. So why care so much that someone believes in God? It isn’t hurting you to let them believe and leave them alone. Why make web sites and go on and on about it? Who are you trying to convince? You or us? Why be so hate filled for a group of people? Just let us believe what we believe. I have no problem with you believing what you believe. So don’t be so hateful that I believe differently than you.

[Reply to This Comment]

  javil said:

November 18, 2008 @ 9:59 am

This list is ridiculous. 1st off, you’ve taken a bunch of old testament stories, that are nothing but anecdotes and allegories anyways, and have claimed inconsistencies. Your quotes are out of context, and therefore cannot be viewed properely. I’ll take the idea that you explore about the origin of something (i.e. David’s census, sickness) coming either from Satan or from God, an apparent inconsistency when viewed out of context. However, that concept illustrates the way one action can be viewed as good by one group and bad by another, or something like a major sickness or tragedy can make a person realize they must take action to correct their life.
The Bible is meant to be read in the larger theological and moral context, look at the bigger picture and bigger message. To claim that the Bible is just a “poorly written book from the Iron Ages,” further advances your ignorance and lack of appreciation for what is one for the greatest pieces of literature produced by man. No other book contains so many themes and concepts that strike at the heart of what it really means to be human.
Do yourself a favor and take this article down, it only makes you look silly.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Design Dragon said:

November 18, 2008 @ 11:13 am

Complete garbage - if the passages you cited are read within their context, it’s clear this entire post is misinformed and uneducated. Not a Bible scholar by any means - reading a little above and below each passage cited - the “inconsistencies” you claim become null

[Reply to This Comment]

  ME said:

November 18, 2008 @ 11:21 am

Why must you tear down everything people believe in. I’m not asking you to convert to my faith or anything but why must you spend an obviously large amount of time and effort on trying to discredit what people believe in. I am not even going to say anything about the fact that these passages were all taken out of context, and do not truly mean the things you are applying them to. It is truly sad to me that you can’t just sit back and evaluate the situation, and think that there is possibly more to this whole thing than i realize. I wouldn’t expect somebody who hasn’t studied the Bible to understand these passages for the y are very deep and not easy to understand. And i know you haven’t studied the Bible because you can;t study the Bible from outside of faith. If you do this then as you said before you are studying a book in history. By the way talking about how many times it has been translated, It has only been translated twice if you would like to get a King James version. Even with this argument it is the most in tact article of reading we have from such a distant date.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Wes said:

November 18, 2008 @ 11:28 am

I can’t wait for someone to come up to me with this poorly put-together, out of context list that you made… Just so that I can negate and disprove every single one of these as “contradictions.” I honestly don’t think you did your research before posting this.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Hamid said:

November 18, 2008 @ 11:28 am

A good piece of research work. As Muslims we believe in all divine books, without this our faith is incomplete, however, we also believe that over the ages, except the Holy Quran, all other divine books have been modified / re-phrased at various places. That is why there are different editions all over the world. The Holy Quran was revealed in Arabic and it is the final word of Allah Almighty.

Throughout the world one can find millions of Muslim males and females who know it by heart word by word, all thirty chapters. This is the miracle of the Quran. Allah Almighty Himself has taken the responsibility of its safety.

[Reply to This Comment]

  some Christian guy said:

November 18, 2008 @ 12:07 pm

To take Scriptures out of context and comparing them to other Scriptures (that were also taken out of context) is the easiest way to get yourself in trouble with someone who knows what they are talking about. I’m only going to pick one out and show you what I mean. This is the reason for the Bible to begin with so here we go.

Adam was to die the day he ate the forbidden fruit. Gen.2:17.
Adam lived 930 years. Gen.5:5.

If you have ever read the Bible and understood that God deals with the spiritual side of things and not just the physical, you would know that this Scripture(Gen 2:17) is not talking about a physical death. It means that if you eat this fruit you will be disconnected(die) spiritually and then you have to make sacrifices to atone for your sins.

What? Because he messed up we have to pay for his sins?

No. How many times have we as humans gone against God and His commandments? If we were one of the first we would have sealed out fate in the garden a long time ago.

So why give us the choice to begin with?

Because God wants us to love Him and the only true love is given, not forced. If you want to believe in God and His plan, you have to want to.

If you want to say that the Bible is nothing more than poorly written history, show me the original copy of any writing (not carved in stone) older than 1000 years. Most of the writings we have from hundreds/thousands of years ago were copied and translated and then copied again. So to say something is unreliable because it was copied is saying every piece of writing that has more than one copy is flawed.

So before you go around telling people that you are right and they are wrong, check your facts and you logic. Because picking out segments of the Bible and claiming the whole thing is wrong is like taking a screw out of a machine and saying that the whole thing can’t work because one screw doesn’t match the one next to it.

I got one for you regarding the carbon dating process. Carbon test something twice and give me the same date.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Justin said:

November 18, 2008 @ 1:37 pm

Well, at least you read some of the bible, thats more the most atheists do. But if I took things out of context and paraphrased them so they could contradict other parts, I suppose I could make every book ever wrote look stupid. It’s tries to find inconsistencies in the bible like these, that make me feel pity for the people who write them. If someone ever finds a REAL inconsistency in the bible, I doubt its going to be someone on a blog for atheists. (they wont though)

[Reply to This Comment]

  janzie said:

November 18, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

haha! to bad you have no idea how to read the bible… then perhaps a conversation with you on your misreadings would do you some good but you lack the basic knowledge for that so i won’t ^_^ i stopped after looking them up after the first five, seeing how wrong you were with just those. get a read bible, it helps when it’s been translated by someone who reads hebrew and greek. silly atheist lol!!!

[Reply to This Comment]

  Loki said:

November 18, 2008 @ 4:04 pm

Most of these verses have been taken out of context. I have not the time or the interest in correcting these, but I will say that any command made in Leviticus was meant to be a rule for the Levites or the priests.

[Reply to This Comment]

  John said:

November 18, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

I don’t mind an intelligent discussion with atheists, but this ain’t that.

For example, the first quotations from Genesis are based on an assumption that this is a chronological book. But I don’t see why you think it is chronological. You don’t say why.

And #7 compares God’s perfect creation to corruption clearly instigated by mankind. What kind of question is this that doesn’t understand the difference? You call this an inconsistency?

Let’s have an Intelligent discussion about it.

[Reply to This Comment]

  GMNightmare said:

November 18, 2008 @ 8:05 pm

Actually, most of these ARE NOT taken out of context, and are quite frankly obvious.

Bryan, you quoted the bible, and then sat there like an idiot with the inconsistency right in front of you for number 3.
Gen 1:20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”
Gen 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Ahem, let’s repeat after me “GOD had FORMED OUT OF THE GROUND all the beasts of the field AND ALL THE BIRDS OF THE AIR.” God created the birds when there was no ground (a different phase, so why is he combining phases?), and certainly not out of the ground. You can take it many ways, and every way gives an inconsistency.

S.E. is also a moron, why? Because he doesn’t realize that Buddhism doesn’t worship a god. Perhaps next time you can look things up. Oh, yeah, it’s best not to make a post calling all other religions worshiping demons and not the true way and not the right way and then whine and complain about people saying the same thing about your beliefs. Irony maybe? Well it would be, if every religious person didn’t say the same thing, trying to feel good by outcasting everybody then saying they shouldn’t outcast you.

ME, no, the Bible passages aren’t very deep at all. Commonality is that no matter how cruel, how barbarous, how inconsiderate, all that matters is a belief in god, and everybody else is going to hell. Your going to burn if you don’t do this, your going to burn if you don’t do this, god smiting this person for doing this, god killed that person for doing this, god allowed so and so to rape her because of this, god allowed him to murder them because of this…

In reality, you can’t study the bible from in the faith, because you ignore everything you don’t want to hear. Everything. God condones rape? Don’t want to hear it. God allows murder? Don’t want to hear it. Inside the religion, you make up all kinds of notions to get yourself to sleep at night. “I’m not asking you to convert to my faith” perhaps not you, but the age old just because I’m not doing it doesn’t cut it. When everybody is declaring war because their holy book says to, you don’t get to sit there and say “We’ll I’m not doing it so you can’t say the religion is bad because of our war declaring.” Pathetic, it’s allowing all of the atrocities of your religion, simply because you aren’t the exact one doing it.

And no, the bible isn’t the oldest “tact” book, by far. I don’t know which definition you wanted by “tact”, but given the dozens of books to chose from that are older than the bible, it would be easy (even books of other religions) to match your definition of “tact”.

Moving on the the 3rd and final moron… (this is kinda funny, it’s almost every single type of religious nut has posted here: the one who can’t and doesn’t even know anything about their own bible, the one who says I don’t do this so my religion is fine, and the one who preaches falsely… Amazing)… the some Christian guy.

Where do you get your information? I mean really? So we spiritually die… and then we have to atone? Do you get what the word die means? So Adam is fully dead, he’s not in heaven right now right? And for that matter, nobody is because spiritually, we’re all dead. Of course, I know your nonsense already that believing in your religion, god will magically resurrect… er… you spiritually… no no no, actually I want to here your excuse, because your little explanation brings far more inconsistencies to the bible than if you just acknowledged the inconsistency. How about tying your BS with the new testament while your at it.

“What? Because he messed up we have to pay for his sins? No.” Obviously, you don’t get your religion because that is precisely what the bible says. That you pay for your ancestors sins, that your are born with sin. BTW, which commandments? The first commandments that Moses brought down with him or the second set of completely different commandments? It seems god likes to change his rules depending on the situation.

And god doesn’t give choice. IE, saying go to hell or love me isn’t a choice. That’s BS, and it’s that little thing you’ve created to go to sleep at night saying everybody else is going to hell–that we had a choice to believe in your lies without ever looking at them and analyzing it for the trash it is.

“Carbon test something twice and give me the same date.” Yeah… that’s easy, seriously, do you even check your facts twice? Carbon dating is quite reliable, and gives the same answer no matter how many times you check. Your trying to grasp at the fact that carbon dating might not be completely precise due to numerous situations (not typical)… unfortunately for you, there are many other ways to measure dates…

So, before you go telling people right and wrong check your facts AND YOUR LOGIC first.

Oh, for old books not translated over and over? Maybe the Precepts of Ptah-hotep or the Papyrus Ebers? And no, we didn’t say anything copied was going to lose accuracy, we said TRANSLATED. You added copied because your little rant doesn’t work otherwise.

All of these are inconsistencies. All. And they are not taken out of context. All any Christian does is say these are taken from context when in reality, they aren’t. The reason why is because they cannot solve the inconsistencies, and to acknowledge them means their religion is wrong. Same is said whenever full quotes of god commanding somebody to rape or murder somebody “Oh, that’s taken out of context”. And then they wonder why people murder others saying god told them to do it.

Remember kids, god said males are better than females, that you should murder others and rape in his name, and that if you don’t believe in him and follow the religion exactly you’ll burn in hell because your a little demon full of sin (unless you do everything, then your an angel! )

[Reply to This Comment]

  GMNightmare said:

November 18, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

??? John?
Chronological in the beginning, specifically because each action is done in one “day”. And then of course the bible trips up all over itself mixing up days and confusing things. That was easy, very easy.

We’re not a perfect creation and we instigated corruption. I don’t understand why religions can’t grasp such a thing, perfection doesn’t exist in our world, none of us are perfect, god did not make a perfect thing if we are that thing.

You don’t mean intelligent discussion, you mean a farce. You want to argue with completely illogical terms and call that a discussion.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Passing Through said:

November 18, 2008 @ 8:37 pm

How about you get your facts straight instead of basing your life on conjecture and the lack of reading comprehension? You are entitled to your opinion, just get it right.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Design Dragon said:

November 18, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

in regards to #3 - and GMNightmare’s response about it -
there is no inconsistency, and perhaps before you go on these long winded rants - you buy a dictionary and thesaurus and apply them to the scripture’s you’re going on about -
Genesis 1:19 - as you quoted -
“And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”
Can you - or anyone tell me - HOW this verse says the birds were created from water?
It says they will fly in the sky - which birds have been known to do -
the verse says the water will teem with living creatures - which - still - has NOTHING to do with birds being created from water - in fact - it has nothing to do with birds at all -
maybe you don’t know the definition of “teem” - so I’ll help you -
Dictionary.com defines teem as - “to abound or swarm; be prolific or fertile (usually fol. by with).” - so - nope - nothing about birds being created from water - in the context of the Bible verse- it means the waters will be full of life - hmmmm…could it mean sea life…..Fish, perhaps? what a concept, eh?

[Reply to This Comment]

  Design Dragon said:

November 18, 2008 @ 9:23 pm

I meant Genesis 1:20 to be quoted above - and referred to it as 1:19 -
my bad - there’s an inconsistency for ya - but I’m Human - and Forgiven =]

[Reply to This Comment]

  GMNightmare said:

November 18, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

Are you proving my point? Yes. I mean really. Did you think for 5 seconds?

Let’s cover this first, since you can’t read. I never said that birds were created out of water. Nor did I say the bible did. Tada! Your whole statement is now nullified because you failed to read. But my statement was a little vague, so I’ll reexplain to you the obvious inconsistency that everybody in the world sees except by those who take the bible as true.

Now, let us take an actual quote:
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” -King James Version

Let us look here, so god formed every beast and fowl and then brought them to Adam right?

Wrong. Well, at least Genesis 1:20-1:27 says. After all, man WAS MADE LAST! Furthermore, fowl were created first, and they weren’t created at the same time as the beasts like the passage implies. Furthermore, the passage doesn’t deal with fish now does it?
This, is the SECOND page of the bible. RIGHT after the first page, and they couldn’t even get the order right because they wanted to tell a story of how superior man was to every other living creature!

But no no, really, there is no inconsistency! Surely, you have something that will make the magic work and everything flow together? Of course, that solution won’t bring up their own inconsistencies as well right? Do, pray tell.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Bryan said:

November 18, 2008 @ 11:22 pm

ROCK ON GUYS!!!!!

heaving dead cats has been ofmficially pwn3d

i will pray 4 you

[Reply to This Comment]

  Design Dragon said:

November 18, 2008 @ 11:41 pm

GMNIghtmare -
Nothing is proving your point - not even you -
your post and my subsequent reply was in regards to #3 in the main content of this post - was it not - so maybe you should go back up and have a look at what #3 is claiming - or I’ll just put it right here for you -
#3. The birds were created out of the water. Gen.1:20.
The birds were created out of the land. Gen.2:19.
it looks like the author of this post is claiming that “the birds were created out of water” -
do you actually read what you try to debate about - or are you always this mindless and ignorant?
The rest of your post - from man was created last on - is just non-sense and I don’t even know what point you’re attempting to make there after - all living creatures were created - and then man - and then they were brought to man to be named - yes - and your point is what about that?
You really should read and try to grasp what it is you are trying to refute -
to refer to a specific instance in this post, then say you weren’t talking about that - or didn’t say that - when it’s all right here in print - is not even amusingly pathetic - it’s just sad.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Giffmex said:

November 19, 2008 @ 1:21 am

Regarding #10: God IS impartial, all things being equal. But in the case of Cain and Abel, things were not equal. One made and offering that was good and the other made an offering that was bad. Had Cain and Abel made good offerings, God would have been impartial. Had they both made bad offerings, he would have been impartial.

Perhaps the person who posted the list was thrown off by the fact that Genesis never explains WHY Cain’s offering was unacceptable. But the story doesn’t require that explanation. The initial story about the offerings is just background info to set up the scene for Cain’s anger and his subsequent murder of Cain.

So, there is no contradiction in this. This is just one example of the weak argumentation in this post.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Giffmex said:

November 19, 2008 @ 1:24 am

#22: Greatness and meekness are contradictory? Someone can’t be well-known and have integrity and honor, etc, yet be meek and self-effacing at the same time?

[Reply to This Comment]

  Giffmex said:

November 19, 2008 @ 1:31 am

#9: The Exodus verse is telling when the proper name of the Lord was first used. The verses in Genesis were written much later, by people already accustomed to using that name, and when writing Genesis they used the name that they knew, but the people they wrote about would not have known. Anachronistic writing style, maybe, but not contradictory. I could keeo going with answers like these, but this is ridiculous. I’m going to bed. I think with these 3 posts I have made my point sufficiently well over against GMNightmare, who claims that all these are most assuredly contradictions.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Observations and Interesting Things | Heaving Dead Cats said:

November 19, 2008 @ 3:42 am

[...] week ago I did a post called 50 Old Testament Inconsistencies. It was just something I thought might be a bit different to share with everyone. I didn’t [...]

  Deadpan said:

November 19, 2008 @ 10:41 am

StumbledUpon this… doctrine or refuting based on verses taken out of contects/misunderstood is just decieving yourself. Read the whole Bible, it is an integrated message. Take it literally, but remember it has rhetorical devices used to explain different things. RESEARCH and pray for understanding.
BTW, why Cains offering wasn’t accepted, is explained in 1. John 3, his motives were wrong, his hearth was prone to jealousy and contempt.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Bryan said:

November 19, 2008 @ 10:47 am

that’s fine if you want to post something, but not of it’s a lie.It’s ok that you don’t understand the bible, and you don’t understand how it was written but you shuld ask someone next time instead of just posting a fake article

[Reply to This Comment]

  GMNightmare said:

November 19, 2008 @ 2:05 pm

This is why you just don’t get it. All the inconsistencies above are, summaries. They don’t go into depth. Quick, and easy, analysis and big arguments are supposed to form after.

Tell me, what better way to make a quick sentence to mark this inconsistency? It takes me paragraphs just to explain why. There are others which are plainly dead on (most of them are the ones dealing with numbers), this isn’t one of them.

In this case, there is a separation. Why did god, make fish and birds at the same time? Indeed, that would be illogical as beasts should have come before birds.

But in any case, “all living creatures were created - and then man - and then they were brought to man to be named” is not what Genesis 2:19 says. Genesis 2:19 says man was already there, and then god formed the beasts and the birds… and brought them to Adam. And this ISN’T a version issue, every single version has god creating the animals after he made Adam.

And no, Design Dragon, you didn’t refute anything. “I don’t even know what point you’re attempting to make there after - all living creatures were created - and then man - and then they were brought to man to be named - yes - and your point is what about that?” See? You completely ignored the whole thing, and the BSed you way to the conclusion that whatever I just said is wrong. I’m afraid it’s the other way around, your bible clearly says your wrong, that birds and beasts were formed after man.

Each piece of evidence you think you bring forth, you make another inconsistency. And it’s the same, you’ll ignore it again, and then think your refuting stuff. No, perhaps you’ll deal with the whole spiritual death thing from more of my post? Or maybe old books with “tact”? How about facing the fact that Moses brings down two sets of commandments? The carbon-dating issue? Oh, yeah, clearly you magically refuted all those things somehow… huh, I never heard you talk about them.

Giffmex, you don’t understand what impartial means. Cain was a farmer. He brought what he could to offer, the pride of his work. So did Abel. God picked a FAVORITE gift. That’s not impartial! Of course, god being impartial is a load of bull and refuted many times throughout the bible… god’s favoritism is well known. Honestly, god can never be impartial if he claims that children are born with the sin of their forefathers! Think. Being impartial means that each child would be judged on their own sins. They would not be born with sin thus! The inconsistency just matched the first example found obviously, far many more.

And for #9, congratulations Griffmex, you gave a good explanation, unfortunately, it is still an inconsistency. An explanation for why an inconsistency exists doesn’t just make the inconsistency disappear magically, it’s still there, just now it has a … semi valid explanation to why it’s there! You have now agreed, that the bible has an inconsistency because of how the writers wrote it, congratulations!

[Reply to This Comment]

  joanna said:

November 19, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

your “annotated skeptic’s bible” is poorly annotated, and i’d just like to point out that the vast majority of your “inconsistencies” are either not inconsistencies at all, or are easily disproven simply by, oh, i dunno, looking in the Torah?

don’t you have anything better to do than be an egotistical prick?

[Reply to This Comment]

  bobcat said:

November 19, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

For people who believe so much in scientific method and academic rigour, you guys do not give the bible that much serious research, you look for the most poorly translated editions and exploit its inconsistencies, and you choose “contradictions’ in wordings not in the actual subject matter. Frankly these are the weakest and most pathetic attempts to disprove the bible i have ever seen.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Design Dragon said:

November 19, 2008 @ 10:26 pm

Ok, GMNightmare - and everyone else - this will be my last post here before moving on to other things - I apologize in advance for the long-winded nature this post is about to become - but instead of just going back and forth with GMNightmare and his/her long-winded posts, I’m going to put up a thorough explanation of the supposed inconsistency in Genesis 1 and 2 - it is my sincere hope that all will read it - and it will at least get you to think - to research, and go to where the facts and evidence truly take you before just coming back with the standard disbelieving responses and witty jabs the so-called atheists seem to be famous for - the truth is a light - and I pray it will shine on everyone who takes the time to read, ponder and research what is actually being said - let’s move on -

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.

Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.

‘Generations’ is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin’ or ‘record of the origin’. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.

Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1–2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as ‘author’ of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The toledoths acknowledge the sources of the historical records Moses used. This understanding underlines the historical nature of Genesis and its status as eyewitness history, contrary to the defunct ‘documentary (JEDP) hypothesis’ still taught in many Bible colleges.

The differences in the toledoth statements of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 affirm that chapter 1 is the overview the record of the origin of the ‘heavens and earth’ (2:4)—whereas chapter 2 is concerned with Adam and Eve, the detailed account of Adam and Eve’s creation (5:1,2). The wording of 2:4 also suggests the shift in emphasis: in the first part of the verse it is ‘heavens and earth’ whereas in the end of the verse it is ‘earth and heaven’. Scholars think that the first part of the verse would have been on the end of a clay or stone tablet recording the origin of the universe and the latter part of the verse would have been on the beginning of a second tablet containing the account of events on earth pertaining particularly to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:4b–5:la).

Let us apply this understanding to another objection: some also see a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9. We have already realized that Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct import to Adam and Eve, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general.

Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation.

Reference and notes

1. The NIV
2. Charles Taylor, Who wrote Genesis? TJ 8(2):204–211, 1994.

for an even more indepth and researched commentary on this particulat subject, I invite you to look at http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513

[Reply to This Comment]

  Sexy Cheese said:

November 20, 2008 @ 3:11 am

I hate it when atheists lie about the verses and what they contain to make it seem like their point of view is right.
-Will

[Reply to This Comment]

  Sam said:

November 21, 2008 @ 5:15 am

Clearly out of context and misleading.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Dae said:

November 21, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

This makes atheists look ignorant - at least on issues concerning the Bible.
Perhaps this should be considered for removal?

[Reply to This Comment]

  mariah said:

November 21, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

I am not an atheist but I don’t believe in the God of the church or the bible. I think its insane to ever take the bible literally as it was written during a very different time. It really starts getting shaky when you get into the end of days crap most of which is interpreted way differently than it should be.

All that being said I have studied the bible a lot. I was a christian for a long time before I gave it up and thats why I know that there definetly are contridictions in the bible. Pretty much the whole new testament vs old is a contridiction. the god of love who hates, the god of peace that makes war,

but hey if people want to believe in the bible I say more power to you. Personally I prefer to believe in a God of love who doesn’t exclude

[Reply to This Comment]

  GMNightmare said:

November 21, 2008 @ 11:20 pm

“truth is a light - and I pray it will shine on everyone who takes the time to read, ponder and research what is actually being said” Get over your pretentious haughty attitude… although this phrase best describes those who do religion by doctrine. Unoriginal, just copies others, never thinks for themselves (yet the seem to think so, even though they just copy the first argument they hear that supports them). Do you think I haven’t heard that before? Yet you assume that it’s the truth, and that anybody who reads it must accept it because you must be right, because your book tells you so. So you say you’ll pray, like your god has nothing better to do then to serve your petty little needs in an argument that your failing at.

For note, I do NOT disagree with people like Mariah, a religious person by heart, not some doctrine. The whole bible is a crux and a hoax. If some religion where true, there would be absolutely no sense for a bible. I mean, just from the very beginning of the bible, an omnipotent god wouldn’t take 6 days to do what he wanted, he’d take not even a millisecond and everything he wanted would be done, instantly, he is, omnipotent after all. But such obvious and glaring holes in the bible are ignored, constantly. There has never been a good argument by any religious being as to why it took an omnipotent creator 6 days to do what he wanted.

As for you Design Dragon, you picked the wrong random explanation to back up your argument. What? Did you think the second link on your google search would grant you everything? You think you actually “researched” this? BS, you looked for the very first thing that you thought supported your argument and used it. And, notably, you should have made a different argument.

The best argument in this position would be to say that god formed another set of animals. After all, did god create both females and males at the same time? Perhaps not. Perhaps he created one set first and then the next after Adam. Wouldn’t it be a nice parallel to have all males created first, then all females… the bible, after all, always treats females as second class beings.

Not that this is a good argument mind you, it’s just better. Far better than what you used. Indeed, this argument, the better argument, in fact screws over your argument. What if that is what it really intends? The bible really intends a second set of creatures where formed after Adam? By your argument, god can never do the same thing twice… say hello to the contradiction that you just made by trying to explain away another. Of course you would argue otherwise, because you want to apply your twisted view of “context” to only things that support your argument.

Now tell me, why do most bibles not translate that to past tense? Because doing so is BS. It’s a made up defense against an argument that they couldn’t face. Context is based upon THE SENTENCE THAT IT IS IN. And, the sentence leading up to the statement and after. Context wise, the bible is very clear that god formed animals after Adam:
[The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."]
This sentence is shared by every single translation in one form or another. AFTER god made Adam, that he will make a helper for him. Then the next sentence forms that helper. CONTEXT. WOW, AMAZING how it works when it’s used RIGHT.
For NIV to twist the context of the actual sentence, they warped Genesis 2:19 to fit their view, changing that sentences context… like adding the word “now”. Of course that was meaningless, as I just explained since Genesis 2:18 sets the context for 2:19.

By the way, next time, try to search for a more… ahem… scholarly article. I know you think that research deals with finding the first BS paper you can find that supports you, but in the real world research actually implies checking sources. Really, why would I care about some unknown guy who quoted another unknown figure, making a really unprofessional article that only lasts… what? Two pages? And what do you do? Practically plagiarized the article, you didn’t EVEN TRY to add in your own commentary… it’s basically you just summarizing that article.

And your wrong about the origin of the Pentateuch, it is believed the origin of such was oral stories passed down from generation to generation, until finally some day people compiled these stories. Furthermore, a lot would argue with backings from many sources in the bible that Moses wrote it. I guess you chose to not back Moses creating the Pentateuch, thus not actually following the mainstream thought… on one issue.

Oh, btw, you forgot to solve all the other arguments and problems. Your failing terribly at this game… quick, use google to find more sources that you can copy to solve the growing dilemma of all the issues your lacking explanations for. I mean, you still haven’t said a word about the fish… ect… ect… ect… Only fighting the fights you think you have a sure chance to win? Still failing unfortunately.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Bill in Detroit said:

November 22, 2008 @ 3:27 am

Moses was great. Ex.11:3.
Moses was meek. Numbers 12:3.

Not mutually exclusive.

[Reply to This Comment]

  SparksFly said:

November 22, 2008 @ 6:28 pm

Tell me all your thoughts on God ‘cuz I’d really love to meet her.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Neece said:

November 23, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

GMNightmare, you’re so awesome. I’ve greatly enjoyed your comments. I think… I think I love you! If you ever want to submit a blog article for us, I’d be honored to post it.

I also really enjoyed the typical hateful christian responses, once again proving that christians fundies are the farthest thing from what Christ-like is supposed to be. You give all christians a bad name with your hateful twisted failed attempts at logic.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Chris said:

November 23, 2008 @ 5:46 pm

I don’t know… if I were any sort of self-respecting Christian, and I stumbled upon this site, I know what would happen. I would spend time studying and praying over these inconsistencies, and either I would find an answer for each one or I wouldn’t; either my faith would be strengthened or it would be weakened. Either way, my point is that if you truly have faith in something you should never be afraid to question it. That’s just being blind. My reaction would be a deep, personal meditation on the subject.

I can tell you what my reaction would not be. It would not be lashing out ultra-defensively in hate and retaliation. I think that I’m mature enough to realize that such negativity would not help the situation. I’d ask you all to consider the way that such behavior comes across to a non-believer (such as myself). Because to me, it appears that this article has struck a nerve with you and that you are reacting to it with hateful, fearful, nasty comments when you could simply have navigated to another page. Congratulations, however. If your goal was to re-assure a non-believer that the only effect that religious zeal has on people is to reduce them to angry babbling half-wits, you have succeeded. Good day.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Craig said:

November 23, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

As a Christian, I have to say I am embarrassed by the way the Fundamentalist Right treats people who don’t agree with their own view. I’ve been reading the comments over the past few days and I have to agree with Neece on this one, it is hateful and definitely not Christ-like.

Now, my two bits about the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts of creation. I personally don’t think that either story was meant to be taken literally. Do I believe that God could create the world in six days? Yes. Do I think that is how it really happened? Scientific evidence seems to dispute it. I think the creation account was passed down from generation to generation in a way that early humans could understand. A day is much easier to understand that a eon, epoch, or millennium.

The contradiction between stories of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are a result of the fact that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written/redacted by two different individuals/groups of people and are probably two different accounts of creation because they are trying to highlight different events. Gasp! In fact, the Torah/Pentateuch has four distinct authors/redactors.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Neece said:

November 23, 2008 @ 5:50 pm

Chris, you stated it PERFECTLY. Thank you. You officially rock.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Neece said:

November 23, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

Craig, thank you for your comment. Thanks for showing everyone that a pleasant disagreeing point of view can come from a Christian.
While you and I don’t agree, we certainly could sit down and discuss the issues. We’d never see it the same way, but it would be fun and we’d both probably learn something, if we let ourselves.
For instance, I do agree with you that Genesis was written by more than one author. See how easy that was? And it didn’t even hurt to be nice at all!
Thanks again for showing us that not all Christians are rabid, babbling half-wits full of hate and vitriol.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Alex said:

November 24, 2008 @ 1:27 pm

Whether Christian or not, academically, this is not properly researched.
Of course you don’t argue the finer points of the Bible, in fact you’ve taken it completely out of context. A word of warning to anyone who may come across this, logically, this work is incorrect. Read the passages for yourselves, the whole chapter, and you’ll understand what is going on in the context. Use the NIV, it is a trusted translation.
Finding an inconsistency in the Bible is, from both a religious and academic point of view, not possible.
Thanks for your time.

[Reply to This Comment]

  Momma said:

November 24, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

Definitely written by someone who has not actually studied the Bible and does not understand it at all.

[Reply to This Comment]

  ben said:

November 24, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

Do you know how many have tried to debunk the Bible over the thousands of years it has been around? MANY. How many have succeeded? NONE. Nor archeological, nor geological nor historical researches have been able to. This is obviously a poor attempt.

[Reply to This Comment]

  GMNightmare said:

November 24, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

Momma, probably somebody who understands it better than you. In fact, I guarantee it, you probably haven’t read it yet… especially since you didn’t even take the time to say WHY you think it was written by somebody who hasn’t studied the bible.

As for you Alex, who are you to say what’s not properly researched? And no, again, I’ll say it bloody again, none of it is out of context. Quit with your BS claims that every time somebody comes around with a contradiction all you say is, “Oh, it must have been taken out of context!” No. How about you prove it? What was taken out of context? And what finer points? You mean the rape? Murder? Oh, you must mean the actual good aspects, the 1/1000 where something benevolent happens in the bible. Why argue with those? We are not here to argue with what your faith has best to offer, were here to argue against your ugly side… you know, the part where your religion wages wars in god’s name. We wage war over the fact that you follow a completely BS book literally instead of bloody thinking for one second for yourself.

And seriously, can you back up your words? Not possible? It’s been proven possible! It is completely possible! The bible is littered with inconsistencies, the evidence is, lol, right above you. Your faced with a list of inconsistencies that you haven’t disproven, therefore, you have no right to say something like that.

And, ben bible has been debunked constantly, for thousands of years. And people have been winning from the beginning with the biggest inconsistency:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.”
Epicurus 33 A.D.

The bible has been debunked for thousands of years.

Craig and Chris are the religious ones