The Bible Contains Inaccuracies

First of all, I would like to point out that I have been addressing parts of the bible that are in conflict, which result in at least one inaccuracy per conflict. CON has not challenged any of my points on what the bible actually says, instead, he has generally argued that the words on the pages actually mean something different. Arguments 1) Joseph’s Father I showed that the different genealogies in Matthew and Luke each attribute a different father to Joseph; CON did not dispute this. What CON did was to assert that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary’s genealogy. There are numerous problems with this claim, other than its lack of scriptural support; however, I will only address one at this time: Jews generally trace their ‘Jewishness’ through their mother; all other matters such as the affiliation with a particular tribe, and royal or priestly status are patrilinear [1]. So, Jesus could not have a royal birthright through Mary, because royal status is passed through the father, and he can’t have royal status through Joseph, because Joseph’s lineage was cursed in the time of Jechonias (Jeremiah 22:24-30) [a]. So, if we are going to argue that the genealogy in Luke is Mary’s, then we run into another inconsistency because Jesus cannot inherit David’s throne and therefore is not fulfilling the prophesy in the 9th chapter of Isaiah [3]. Either way, this is an inconsistency. [a] Jechonias is the same person as Coniah [2] 2) Earthly Languages Again, I have shown how the words in the bible show an inaccuracy; CON has chosen to argue for a particular interpretation. However, instead of trying to argue something that may boil down to an opinion, I will take a different path with this argument. According to Genesis 11:1-9 (The Tower of Babel story), everyone in the world spoke the same language. Now, the story of the Tower of Babel is generally dated to about 2100-2400 BCE [4][5]. However, it is known that humans have been living in the Americas since before that time [6]. This begs the question as to how the events affected the language spoken in the Americas, or any of the other areas that had been settled at that time such as Australia [7]. In fact, the story flies in the face of what modern linguists know regarding the origin and evolution of languages [8]. The Tower of Babel story is not historically accurate. 3) Moses’ Father-in-Law Here, CON’s main argument is with a translation, which is something that confuses me since I agreed to use the King James Version of the bible because CON said it was a “direct translation” [b]. Now, for some reason, CON suddenly has a problem with the translation. I would like to point out that nearly every translation of the bible that I am aware of translates this passage as “father-in-law. ” Here are a few other examples: American Standard Version . http://www.biblegateway.com... Complete Jewish Bible . http://www.biblegateway.com... English Standard Version . http://www.biblegateway.com... Orthodox Jewish Bible . http://www.biblegateway.com... Geneva Bible . http://www.biblegateway.com... Young’s Literal Translation . http://www.biblegateway.com... New World Translation . http://www.jw.org... Here is a link to a site that compares Hebrew versions of the Pentateuch; every version uses “father-in-law. ” . https://sites.google.com... I have shown that what the bible CON suggested be used in this debate is internally inconsistent in this instance, and therefore, inaccurate. CON’s claim that the usage of the word “father-in-law” in the passage from the book of Numbers just doesn’t hold up. My point stands. [b] See the Comments section of this debate. 4) Punishment for Parent’s Sins Here, the real concern is over the passage in Exodus 34:7, which CON accuses me of taking out of context. However, the context is pretty clear. God is talking to Moses; basically telling Moses how great he (God) is. In this verse, God is saying how merciful he is, and then he finishes the sentence about his mercy by saying “and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. ” A more accessible translation says it this way, “Yet he (God) does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” [9]. CON’s claim about repentance isn’t supported by scripture. My point stands. 5) When Did Baasha Die? CON’s concern regarding the different dating systems is irrelevant. The texts I cited didn’t use dates; they used a universally recognizable reference point, the reign of a local ruler. Example: Bill Clinton was sworn in as President of the United States in 1993 according the Gregorian calendar or 5753 by the Jewish calendar [10]. If we say that something happened in the year 1993, there could be confusion as we have two different dating systems, but if we say that it happened in the year Bill Clinton became president, there is no confusion. The latter is how the verses in question are written; CON’s argument here simply doesn’t make sense. The 26th year of Asa’s reign is the 26th year of Asa’s reign regardless of how different nations count the years. My point stands. 6) Should Good Works be Seen? CON’s argument here is one of interpretation; I am talking about what the words say. The verse in the 5th chapter of Matthew says to do good works publicly; in fact it says that you should do things in such a way as to be seen [11], while the verse in the 6th chapter of Matthew says to do it in secret. CON suggests that the passage in chapter 6 simply says that we shouldn’t be doing things to look good. However, if we read on, verse 3 says to “let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth,” and verse 4 “That thine alms may be in secret” [12]. We are not talking about simple motivation; we are clearly instructed to keep our good works secret. If CON wants to interpret the verse in a particular way as he practices his faith, that is his prerogative, however, I am concerned with what the verses actually say. My point stands. Conclusion I have provided six examples of inaccuracies in the bible. CON generally argued that the words on the pages in the bible actually mean something different from what they generally mean. In one case, I showed that if CON’s objection is correct, it will result in a different inaccuracy. In another that may be more a matter of opinion, I offered another reason for why this portion of the bible is inaccurate. My other four points still stand because I have shown why CON’s objections are either irrelevant or just plain wrong. I reaffirm my original position that The Christian Bible contains at least five inaccuracies. [1] . http://www.jewfaq.org... [2] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.biblegateway.com...[4] . http://www.trinity-ottumwa.com...[5] . http://www.bible.ca...[6] . http://imnh.isu.edu...[7] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] . http://www.newscientist.com...[9] . http://www.biblegateway.com...[10] . http://stevemorse.org...[11] . http://www.biblegateway.com...[12] . http://www.biblegateway.com...