Biblical Contradictions #2

This time we focus on the disparity in the Gospels of Jesus’ original birthplace, that is, Bethlehem and Nazareth. Jesus couldn’t have been born in two places, such a thing wouldn’t be possible, it’s inherently contradictory, a person can’t be born in two places at once… unless the Bible is referring to two separate Jesuses.

Let me explain, the possibility has been raised before that while the Jesus of the Gospels never existed as depicted in said Gospels, there may have been many a Jesus that the Gospel Jesus is ultimately based on, a composite character of several real and fictional people, if you will. Sort of like how Moses is arguably a composite character of Hammurabi and Sargon, two great Mesopotamian emperors and lawgivers.

Either way, this demonstrates that the Bible isn’t the inerrant word of God, for what omniscient, infallible deity would make such a basic copying error?

Biblical contradictions #1

This is the first of a multi-part series of essays highlighting the numerous contradictions that the Bible possesses, the first one is going to focus on the contradiction in creation accounts between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

In Genesis 1, the creation myth goes as this: Over an undefined period of time, the cosmos, all the animals, and everything is created before humans are, and when humans are created, the two sexes of humanity are created at the same time. Contrast that with the creation myth presented in Genesis 2:

Over a period of seven days, the universe is created, and then Man is created, the beasts are created after Man is, to show Man’s dominance unto nature, and then Man gets lonely, so Woman is created from Man’s Ribs.

In the first myth, animals are created before humans, and females and males are created at the same time; in the second myth, humans are created before the animals, and woman are created after men.

This presents a problem for Biblical literalists. Clearly both cannot be true at the same time, for that would be a paradox, which is true? If only one of them is true, then that shows that the Bible cannot be infallible, for some parts of the Bible are obviously false, being not true. If both of them are true, then that creates a logical paradox for Biblical literalists, rendering them both false.

In reality, it’s blatantly obvious that the authors of Genesis compiled two separate creation myths into one half-assed whole, with poor editing, or else we wouldn’t notice the inherent contradictions in the Bible now, would we?

Dating the Book of Job

The traditional scholarly consensus is that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, with a date of origin in the Bronze Age, around 1500 BCE, but recently I noticed a few problems with this, which I will explain below.

If the King James Version translation of Job 20:24 is correct, then the references to “iron” and “steel” in that verse rule out a date of origination in the Bronze Age, for iron and steel were utterly unknown to Bronze Age peoples, for obvious reasons of course.

Therefore, the date when Job was written should be placed in the Iron Age, rather than the Bronze Age, in line with the other books of the Bible. So if I`m correct, the view that Job is an outlier is wrong, and needs to be corrected in light of Job 20:24.

I should note that I’ve received some criticism over my dating of the Book of Job, with some commentators noting that the oral traditions that the Bible is ultimately based upon are most likely far older than the works of the Bible themselves, and while I acknowledge that as likely as well, I should mention that my dating only takes place to when the oral traditions of Job and the other books of the Bible were put to writing, not when the oral traditions they are based upon first came into being.

The entirety of the verse of Job 20:24 is placed below:

He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through.


The Million Dollar Question

This is an important one, and is directed towards religious moderates, specifically Christian moderates, who tend to not be Biblical literalists. This question concerns perhaps the most damning question one can think of towards Christian moderates, and needs no introduction. I think it fit to introduce the Million Dollar Question down below, ready? Here we go:


How does one determine whether or not a particular passage in the Bible is literally true, or only allegorically true?

This is a question that few theists dare answer, I have received responses that, are in effect, non-answers. Such a non-answer is usually along the lines of “What’s true in the Bible is true for different people,”. That’s fine and dandy, but I`m talking about truth, not interpretation, there’s a big difference.

The truth is what can be shown to be literally true, a la if evidence can be shown to support the veracity of a particular statement. An interpretation is one’s reaction to a statement, so while people do interpret the Bible differently, it still doesn’t answer my question, and doesn’t affect whether a particular passage in the Bible is literally true, or only allegorically true.

Any takers?