Talk:Inconsistencies in the Bible

message: We are mixing up a number of different things here.  Redenblu is quite right that we have to be clear about "inconsistency according to whom" -- the point of my suggestion about the title is that many religious groups themselves say that there are inconsistencies (but debate over what the inconsistencies mean).  As someone points out, some inconsistencies are results of assumptions readers make -- I think this is a very different sort of inconsistency than those that are explicit in the text (in other words, the comments about the lex talionis suggest an inconsistency only if you make certain assumptions about justice and mercy -- this is not a matter of two different texts, one which says an eye for an eye, another which says an eye for $1,000.  On the other hand, the differences between the J and E versions of the creation, or Noah, are explicit in the text.  I think the article should limit itself to the second kind of inconsistency.  These are, properly speaking, inconsistencies "in" the Bible.  The other kind are inconsistencies between the Biblical text and Biblical-based religions.)  Someone, I think Ungtss, says that he sees the Bible as a coherant whole.  This is indeed one view, but it is just a point of view.  There is no evidence that the editors and early readers of the Bible saw it this way, for example. Slrubenstein
:that's a great idea to limit it to explicit factual contradictions -- and it would definitely limit the opportunities for pov disputes.  proposed distinction: EXPLICIT inconsistencies versus "IMPLICIT" inconsistencies."
:: incidentally, i don't want to be misunderstood -- i don't think the bible is inerrant or an "integrated whole" -- it's rife with contradiction and inconsistency.  but i do think that by comparing and contrasting the varying experiences and insights of all the authors and applying your own critical reason and experience, superficial inconsistencies may give way to deeper understanding that encompasses ALL the points of view of ALL the authors, and makes the text MORE valuable, not less -- basically, when you take all the points of view in the text together, considering all their different experiences -- you get a pretty amazing picture.  just like our discussion here:).  Ungtss 18:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article is about ALL inconsistencies that are ALLEGED, not ACTUAL. This article is NOT Actual inconsistencies in the Bible. CheeseDreams 21:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: then shall we divide it into explicit and implicit sections, allowing more room for interpretation in the implicit section?  Ungtss 21:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think that's a very bad organisation. I think MPolo has it right, with the article organised by consequence of each inconsistency. This has much more depth, such as Hmm, what if the old testament is about a different God, that would explain it (e.g. the Gnostic point of view - see Demiurge - the old testament God is evil), and what if the Torah isn't written by one person (Documentary Hypothesis), and what if John is a piece of propaganda (to counter those who are actually obeying the Synoptic Gospels but consequently not the church). I don't think your explicit/implicit organisation lends itself to much further development other than "Y is a clear violation of X thus Z", which will be much more seperate and detached than the above. CheeseDreams 22:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals of an explicit nature 

message: This article is NOT a list of inconsistencies. See the archive(01) for that.
I have taken out the Nephilim story. It is too much detail for this article. It belongs in the Nephilim article, if it isn't there already.
This article is about
*inconsistent accounts in the torah => documentary hypothesis
(this includes Creation according to Genesis, parrallel flood accounts (one immediately after the other, if no-one has noticed that before), parralel genealogies (Cain's genealogy is the same as Seth's if you haven't noticed, the words are just spelt slightly differently, and one pair is swapped round).
*inconsistent accounts in the histories and inconsistencies with archaeology => Political propaganda, not history.
(e.g. contradictions between Chronicles, and Samuel/Kings)
*logical problems in the bible => The bible as mangled and supressed compilation of earlier myths
(this includes how did the Nephilim survive, why do 2 psalms treat Sophia (wisdom) as if it were a real female entity who was married to god, why does the El assign Jahweh to the nation of Israel if El is Jahweh, what are the sea monsters Leviathon and Behemoth that God fights, who is Cain's wife, etc.)
*moral failings in the old testament => Marcion's (and others') POV that the old testament god is NOT the same as the new testament god. In fact, that the old testament god is pure evil (marcion deserves a mention for this, the trouble he caused the early church was huge).
*inconsistencies with observed physical reality in the prophets => Allegory not fact
(e.g. Ezekiel's visions (which were probably the result of narcotics), Job's sojourn in the belly of a fish (he should have completely dissolved), etc. - see Ezekiel 26:15-21 for example - it still has not happened)
*inconsistencies within the wisdom texts => collection of known wisdom not statements by a single or small group of authors
(e.g. Psalms disagreeing amongst themselves (e.g. 10:1 vs. 145:18)
*inconsistencies between Matthew and Luke => two-source hypothesis together with the extra bits being made up and/or from Syncretism
(e.g. Matthew 1:16 vs. Luke 3:23, or Matthew 1:18-21 vs. Luke 1:26-31, or Matthew 2:13-16 vs. Luke 2:22-40)
*Inconsistencies between John and the Synoptics (and itself) => John is a forgery for anti-gnostic propaganda purposes
(e.g. Mark 16:5 vs. John 20:1, Luke 1:15 vs. John 16:7, John 10:30 vs. John 14:28, John 13:36 vs. John 16:5 (this is a bit implausible to have really happened unless God has got Alzheimers))
*Quotes from non-existant scripture => Nature of the authors of that passage
(the scripture quoted from is actually in the Septuagint version of the old testament, a Greek text, but not in the Masoritic text which is hebrew - modern bibles use the Masoritic version)
(e.g. James 4:5, Romans 10:11, 
*Acts vs. Paul => Rivalry in the very early church
(which is more Christian? The church of the Apostles themselves (chaired by St. James) or that of St. Paul?)
(e.g. Acts 5:29 vs. Romans 13:1-4, Acts 9:19-28 vs. 2 Corintians 11:32)
*Inconsistencies within Revelations => Revelations is a collection of Jewish legends only vaguely stitched together
(e.g. 8:7 vs. 9:4)
:Alright, I believe you. However, most of what you just said is not in the article, and it should.  It should be done professional-like of course but it should all be there. And bloody hell, try to remember to click the signature button. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 00:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this article is not 

message: The sectional appears to be dealing with ethics rather than morality. Morality is an individual system of deciding right and wrong and is therefore inherently POV.Geni 02:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why it is "alleged/percieved moral inconsistencies"CheeseDreams 02:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are really alleged/percieved ethical inconsitancies (and to be honest for the part they are really incositancies between the new testimant and the old).Geni 02:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Morality and ethics

message: Isn't there a mismatch of the dates given for the birth of Jesus and the Roman records?
That isn't an inconsistancy in the bible. That is an inconsistancy between the bible and historical sources.Geni 12:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: but they are only mutaly exclusive if you bring in outside data.Geni 16:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Fact? Come on we are only 99.9999999999999999999999743764876574833922388438% sure that this is the case. You appear to be confused about NPOV we don't use the word fact we use generaly/widely accepted. I would suggest that inconsistancies between the bible and generaly acepted history go in a sperate article (because there isn't going to be space in this one)Geni 17:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should remain here, until it gets too big for the article. AFTER which time it becomes a daughter article with a summary here. NOT BEFORE. CheeseDreams 17:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Since I belive articles should be correctly labled i will move the whole thing to "common arguments against a literal inteprition of the bible" if you do that.Geni 02:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I believe the article is correctly labelled already, if you do that I will move the page back and point the redirect elsewhere. CheeseDreams 08:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: it the moment yes however it is inconsistencies in the Bible not inconsistencies around the BibleGeni 08:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to the article containing the statement "wheras some fish think it is inconsistent because ....." CheeseDreams 20:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Ok then the bible is incosistant becase it fails to accept that vishnu is lord and master01:30, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth of Jesus 

message: From this section, I find this odd paragraph:
: It is important to note that even within the Old Testament, God is described as kind and merciful, slow to anger - an apparent inconsistency that Jews respond to by stating that God is angered by sin and evil, even though he loves humanity and desires the good for them. Some Christians proclaim that, in consequence, due to the stain of an original sin, mankind was prey to passion and instinct, angering god, until mankind learnt control - at which point God's mercy shone through resulting in Jesus. The vast majority of Christians, do not see a complete rupture between the two parts of the Bible, though many advocate some form of supersessionism.
I don't know of any Christians who believe that God sent Jesus after mankind learned to control his passions so that God could get his anger under control enough to help us, yet that's what this paragraph seems to suggest. Can it be supported, fixed, or should the whole paragraph just be deleted? A sentence or two might be salvagable, but does anyone want to make that effort? Wesley 06:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any Christians who believe that either.  Philip J. Rayment 14:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Testament morality 

message: Why is is it that this page is at Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible but the page countering this one Biblical inerrancy isn't prefixed with alleged?  Jooler 22:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason is this: the inconsistencies are only inconsistent at a literal level.  Those (and there are many) who do not read the Bible literally do not see this as inconsistencies but rather signs of some other meaning.  I understand your objection to "Alleged" and agree we should find a more appropriate word.  As far as the inerrency article, the article is about a doctrine, and the doctrine is Biblical Inerrancy -- the doctrine may be false, but the doctrine itself claims that the Bible is inerrant, not "allegedly" inerrant.  Keep you mind on what the article is about.  That article is not claiming that the Bible is inerrant, it is claiming (accurately) that some people believe the Bible is inerrant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a page about Historical anomalies in Blackadder we do not worry about whether people take the Blackadder series literally or not. I think it is irrelevant that today some people do not read the Bible literally, for a very long period of time most Christians did, those who did not adhere to that view were persecuted. Today an extremely large number of Christians still take the bible as literally true. I find the suggestion that because a number of educated theologians do not read the bible literally, the verified historical anomalies, contradictions and impossibilites should be labelled "alleged", objectionable and I don't think that this word should be substituted with any other. To me as a non-Christian (non-Jew) the Bible is just a bunch of fairy stories containing as much truth as the works of the Brothers Grimm, but because it is the basis of a major belief system it requires more scrutiny as to the "truths" that it holds, and where these "truths" are shown to be contradictory then it is important to point it out "lest ye be fooled". So saying they are only "alleged" if you read it literally is a bit dumb to me, because if you read it without interpreting it literally you can put any spin on it you like. Jooler 22:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I understood you perfectly. I agree alleged is not the right word, but I disagree that any word is needed to qualify biblical inconsistencies. Moby Dick etc.. are not (AFAIK) used as the basis of a belief system. Certainly not for one of the major religions of the world. If Moby Dick was being as the basis of a religion then we would be questioning how much of it was allegedly true and how much of if was intended to be interpreted as a parable. The point still remains. A great body of people believe that the bible is literally trtue.  Now you say to me ... If you believe this, then you truly have no understanding of the fields Comparative Literature and Hermeneutics. Well given that until I typed it into Google 20 seconds ago, I had no understanding of what the word "Hermeneutics" meant, then you are correct that I have no understanding in that field. Should I now roll over and say ... you are far too clever for me and I know nothing? As far as I am concerned the word ""alleged" in this context is perjorative and I cannot see the necessity of this word or a substitute qualifying word. Is the objection to moving this page to "inconsistencies in the Bible" that non-literal interpretation means that inconsistencies are irrelevant? Jooler 22:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged!?

message: Gen.20:12
"And yet indeed, she [Sarah] is my [Abraham's] sister; she is the daughter of my father."
Pretty clear.  For some reason the other users edit disappeared, which is why it looks like I reverted myself to myself, which I didnt :PThe Rev of Bru
:The text explains that this was a deception on Abraham's part. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the text states this, the first time Abram does it (Gen. 12:11-13) and then Gen 20:11.  Isaac does the same thing, suggesting this may be a literary motif(Gen 26:7) (Like the first .  Haven't you done any research on this?  Only one major scholar has tried to take the sister claim seriously, E. A. Speiser, "The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives," Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard U. P., 1963), pp. 15-28.  Speiser observes that it was common among upper-class Hurrians to give a wife the juridial status of a sister (not a blood relation), and suggests that Abram was following this custom.  Most scholars reject this analysis, and call attention to the perspective of J (the presumed author of Gen 12 and 26, which called attention to the importance of women in the fulfilment of God's promise to make a great nation (thus, the lives of the "matriarchs" had to be protected) against P narratives which emphasize the male line. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Abraham/ Sarah. 

message: The Paine quote simply suggests that Biblical morality is inconsistent with 18th century European morality.  I do not question this.  But this article is on inconsistencies "in" the Bible.  What inconsistency in the Bible is Paine referring to? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paine 

message: Can we unprotect this for a minute? I would like to refer to the apparent contradiction of Gen 10:5 to Gen 11:9 (see confusion of tongues). dab (ᛏ) 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Babel

message: Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible → Inconsistencies in the Bible  – Why is is it that this page is at Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible but the page countering this one Biblical inerrancy isn't prefixed with alleged? Jooler 19:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
* Support Why is is it that this page is at Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible but the page countering this one Biblical inerrancy isn't prefixed with alleged? Jooler 19:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
Supposedly these inconsistencies can be interpreted out of existence.  Omitting "alleged" is accepting a certain POV on the topic.  In contrast, the article Biblical inerrancy describes a certain a point of view (at least judging by the title) and so the comparison to that article is not that clean.  Nobody doubts the existence of a idea called "biblical inerrancy" but people doubt the existence of inconsistencies in the bible. Threepounds 08:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Including alleged is POV.  The article is about the inconsistencies, regardless of whether they exist or not.  That's the subject of the article.  Saying "alleged" takes sides and implies that they don't exist.  We don't have articles called Alleged alien abductions, Alleged ghosts, or Alleged mind control.  A neutral title wouldn't have any qualifiers; it would just state what the subject of the article is.  This shouldn't even need a vote. — Omegatron 19:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough.  I'm not convinced that the inclusion of "alleged" is POV, but the examples you cite are sufficient precedence for me and I remove my objection.  However, I think as a courtesy to those who may feel strongly, this should be up for a vote. Threepounds 21:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: People don't doubt inconsistencies in the text of bible. However what some do is suggest that the inconsistency is a matter of interpretation. Now quite frankly the very notion of interpretation allows one to put any spin you like on the text and get away with saying black is white. The actual inconsistency in the text itself remains. Jooler 10:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You mean merge with Biblical inerrancy — Omegatron 01:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that isn't what I meant.—jiy (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a merge is not such a bad idea, though I note the merge headers have been removed from both pages. As I've said before, atm Biblical inerrancy exhibits a definite pro-Bible POV; merging this one would bring some balance. An additional rational for a merge: contradictions in the Bible allow perhaps the simplest counter-argument to belief in inerrancy. Listing them (and discussing possible responses) is thus vital for a  proper understanding of the issues. Does anyone want to put the merge headers back up? Thomas Ash 12:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add any additional comments
Supposedly these inconsistencies can be interpreted out of existence.  Omitting "alleged" is accepting a certain POV on the topic.  In contrast, the article Biblical inerrancy describes a certain a point of view (at least judging by the title) and so the comparison to that article is not that clean.  Nobody doubts the existence of a idea called "biblical inerrancy" but people doubt the existence of inconsistencies in the bible. Threepounds 08:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Including alleged is POV.  The article is about the inconsistencies, regardless of whether they exist or not.  That's the subject of the article.  Saying "alleged" takes sides and implies that they don't exist.  We don't have articles called Alleged alien abductions, Alleged ghosts, or Alleged mind control.  A neutral title wouldn't have any qualifiers; it would just state what the subject of the article is.  This shouldn't even need a vote. — Omegatron 19:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough.  I'm not convinced that the inclusion of "alleged" is POV, but the examples you cite are sufficient precedence for me and I remove my objection.  However, I think as a courtesy to those who may feel strongly, this should be up for a vote. Threepounds 21:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: People don't doubt inconsistencies in the text of bible. However what some do is suggest that the inconsistency is a matter of interpretation. Now quite frankly the very notion of interpretation allows one to put any spin you like on the text and get away with saying black is white. The actual inconsistency in the text itself remains. Jooler 10:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You mean merge with Biblical inerrancy — Omegatron 01:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that isn't what I meant.—jiy (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a merge is not such a bad idea, though I note the merge headers have been removed from both pages. As I've said before, atm Biblical inerrancy exhibits a definite pro-Bible POV; merging this one would bring some balance. An additional rational for a merge: contradictions in the Bible allow perhaps the simplest counter-argument to belief in inerrancy. Listing them (and discussing possible responses) is thus vital for a  proper understanding of the issues. Does anyone want to put the merge headers back up? Thomas Ash 12:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Where are the equivalent articles for other religious texts? — Omegatron 19:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't written them yet. Threepounds 08:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm not going to!  :-) — Omegatron 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah!  I didn't realize that this was your comment, sorry.  I took it to be an unsigned comment by someone sympathetic to the view of inerrancy who was personally offended by the existence of the article. Threepounds 21:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Koran has its share of contradictions. I think there's an Islamic tradition that says the later passages take precedence over the earlier ones in cases of conflict, so at least they have a well accepted way of resolving such things. 12.158.58.180 21:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalents 

message: Especially in light of the proposed merge, I don't feel the discussion of homosexuality belongs here, since what we have here is not a direct contradiction. Its presence gives the feeling that someone is grinding a personal axe (I'm not saying they're right or wrong...) Thomas Ash 19:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This was the wrong article. — Omegatron 23:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does homosexuality belong here?

message: The articles Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible and Internal consistency and the Bible must be merged. It is against Wikipedia policy to have different articles about the same topic, each presenting a specific POV. 
Also please note, that there is a level of detail, which may execeed the putpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia article is supposed to give a summary and review of a topic, not to replace all written books about it (or even add another one). 
The atomisation of area of Bible-related articles does no good to readability and usefullness of the Wikipedia.
Pjacobi 13:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The two separate articles cite similar sources, discuss identical content, and are probably forks of biblical inarrancy anyway! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 18:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge, of course! 

message: Please see Talk:Internal_consistency_and_the_Bible#Redirect.
This article has a lot redirects (), either from merges or from move wars. It would be good, if it can settle at some consensus title.
Pjacobi 16:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged inconsistencies in the Bible. Johnleemk | Talk 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of alleged inconsistencies in the Bible]] merged here 

message: I was looking for a historical chronological order of the books in the Bible, and a comparaison with the order in which they are presented in various versions. Dates, even approximative, could be useful. -- Ze miguel 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological order