Religion III - Friday the 13th

[mardi gras skin]

2. In the New Testament we are told that no man has seen God at any time.

No man hath seen God at any time; ....... [John 1:18]

But in the Old Testament seventy elders of Israel saw God [Exodus 24:9-10] and Moses saw God “face to face.” [Ex. 33:11]

Since God is spirit (John 4:24), no man has ever seen God. God is not a visible being to be seen but is spirit, existing outside of creation and the physics of our world. God has assumed several different forms, some of which are greatly described and stylized such as in Daniel and Revelation (Apocalyptic literature) and in other places the encounter is described as "face to face" such as with Jacob and Moses with no description of God's appearance.

[mardi gras skin]

3. In the New Testament we are told that no man has ascended to heaven.

And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. [John 3: 13]

But in the Old Testament we are told that Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven! [2 Kings 2:11]

This is a contradiction between Old Testament and New Testament? Jesus is making an almost exact quote from the OT:

Proverbs 30:4

Who has gone up to heaven and come down?

Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?

Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?

Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is his name, and the name of his son?

Tell me if you know!

This is not a statement about birth and death (Jesus had net to ascend to heaven at this point) but was a statement about man's inability to penetrate the deapths of God. Jesus is telling Nicodemus that there is stuff out there bigger than even he, a teacher, can understand. Try reading all of John chapter 3 for context and then reading the 30th proverb, then you will see the clean connection you missed when you were looking with an agenda.

[mardi gras skin]

5. In the New Testament we are told that not a single person is righteous.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. [Romans 3:10]

But in the Old Testament we read where this is contradicted, for we read that Noah was righteous! [Gen. 6:9]

How does this demonstrate a divide between the Old and New Testament? The entire quote, from verse 10 to verse 18 of Romans 3, comes from a number of Old Testament passages including Psalms 5:9, 10:17, 14:1-3, 140:3, and Isaiah 59:7-8. Obviously, your verse in Romans is well grounded in OT theology.

Noah is mature and well-rounded, though not without sin. Righteousness is often used in this way, just as Christians are called to be Holy, but at the same time the bible says that none are Holy but God. It is a question of standards: compared to God, none are holy. Compared to others, Christians should exhibit God's qualities more clearly than others.

Are you just reaching, or did you not know that when it says, “as it is written” what comes next comes from the OT? You aren’t going to find the divide you are looking for between OT and NT, especially in these kinds of verses.

[mardi gras skin]

oops. Missed one.

4. In the New Testament we are told that through sin death entered the world and therefore all men must die, because all have sinned.

Wherefore as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. [Romans 5:12]

But in the Old Testament we read where Enoch did not die, even though he had sinned, but was taken to heaven! [Gen. 5:24]

As I stated earlier, "death" most often refers to death of the soul. Eternal separation from God. Paul is clearly not talking about physical death in this passage. I sound like a broken record, but if you had just read the entire section in context, you would have known that. Romans 5:12-21 make up Paul's concluding thesis regarding the applicability of righteousness. verses 12 and 21 are the bookends for his thesis.

Romans 5:21

Just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What kind of "life" is being talked about? Eternal life. So then, what kind of death is being talked about? Of course, Paul is talking about eternal death...eternal separation from God.

Romans 5:12: spiritual decay. Genesis 5:24: Physical decay. Though you can see the truth Paul is explaining throughout Romans (especially chapter 4) in the Enoch passage by the clear implication that Enoch did not decay spiritually.

[mardi gras skin]

6. Then in the Old Testament, God tells us there is no savior except HIM, and after him there shall be no saviors. Which certainly eliminates Jesus, especially in that God never mentioned to Moses or his "chosen people" in the Old Testament that he had a son!

...... Before me there was no God formed, and after me there shall be none. I am, I am the Lord: and there is no savior besides me. [isa. 43:10-11]

But in the New Testament, Jesus contradicts God, and tells us he is the savior. [John 3:14-15]

First, understand that you are taking specific reference to God saving them from the Babylonian empire and taking it out of context, but even if you disagree with that, you’re hard pressed to find any contradiction here.

Jesus is God. True, he is a physical manifestation of God, just like the physical forms you referenced in the OT, but he is God. That is the claim of the New Testament. John 1:1-14, John 8:58, and the many references to Jesus as Messiah, son of God that riddle the NT.

If Jesus is God, how is this a contradiction? You may disagree with that the Bible (either that there is a God or that Jesus is God) but there is clearly no contradiction in the assertion that Jesus is God.

[mardi gras skin]

I could go on and on here, as there are hundreds of these contradictions in the Bibles, especially between the Old and New Testaments. Of course in a prior post, Mardi, played dumb as if he did not know what a contradiction was in court cross-examinations or the legal field. But I am sure most of the other professionals reading this here, do know what a contradiction is. For the contradictions in this post indicate that either the New Testament or the Old Testament statements have to be false. For when we have two contradictory statements, both cannot be true. So we see that the Bibles contain additional falsehoods and cannot possibly be the “inspired word” of God.

I wasn't aware that I had played dumb, only that i disagreed with you. Your assertions that there are contradictions in the Bible have, so far, amounted to two differing eye-witness accounts of what the people crucified next to Christ said. And all that proved was the fact that honest reporting, which includes all testimony, is something that lawyers like you can't grasp.

[MD Daniel]

Inmate,

The Assyrian Church of the East is not a offshoot of the Catholic church. They do use the word catholic(meaning universal) in some of their literature though. They are the remnant of the Church of the East which was the basic name for the the christians east of Jerusalem. Which, btw, until after 1000AD outnumbered the church west of Jerusalem. Interesting facts no ones knows. In the past 1000 years almost all of them have been killed in successive rounds of persecution. You did have the website right, www.cired.org, but it's just some people from the church doing a PR effort. In conversations I've seen that they don't know a whole lot.

And no, I'm not a part of the Assyrian CoE. I happened to run into a forum and become friends with Paul Younan(who is a member and of middle eastern decent) and have been learning about aramaic, the pe****ta and the traditions of the Assryrian CoE. It's another part of the history of Christianity that is very overlooked. From my personal study into the lesser-seen sides of Christianity I can tell you that what you read about in history books(and what you see in modern america for that matter) is a very poor representation of what Christianity really is. I guess it makes sense though. Who writes history books? Yep, those in the establishment. True Christianity has always been somewhat counter-culture(to the best of my knowledge). It's so disappointing that all people read about is Constantine(who said he was the 13th apostle) and the "Holy Roman Empire."

Ah well... I've driven about 28 hours in the past couple of days(my fiance's uncle died in a car wreck and we went drove to Georgia for the funeral) and I'm exhausted. Goodnight guys...

Dan

[mardi gras skin]

daniel, I hope that you and your faince, are doing well. Take care.

[The Sisko]

Inmate,

I have a question which may have already been asked but as I have only been able to get through the first three pages of this thread due to my sloooooooow internet connection, please humor me.

Why did you choose to abandon ALL religion after finding the inconsistencies you so eloquently pointed out from the Bible and Christian doctrine ?

Not unlike you, from the time I was a small child I could never reconcile nor understand many of the doctrines of the church. the two biggest problems for me were the doctrine of the trinity, and the church's "problems" with science.

However, rather than just give up on religion all together, I proceeded to look for a faith that I didn't have to enter into suspension of disbelief mode to practice. For me that was Islam. However, had I checked out ALL the major religions and found none satisfied my criteria then and only then would I have declared myself an agnostic or atheist.

It just seems to me that to immediately declare God a falsehood based on the discrepancies in ONE religion/book is a clear flaw in logic.

I look at it this way. If I/we (religious types) are wrong all we will have lost is some debauchery and the consequences that often come with it. We'll know nothing of our folley after we're dead. If however you're (atheist types) wrong and there is a God you will have had your debauchery (and again the consequences that come with it) but you'll also have a bit of a problem on your hands after death.

And no, I really don't think that everyone on earth should be Muslim. Whatever religion works for you is totally unimportant in my book--well within reason, I'm not talking about cults or anything. According to my belief Allah says in the Qur'an that he sent messengers to all peoples of all times. Therefore, I think there's truth in all religions. What man has done with that truth once revealed well....you see what's happened to the Bible right ? And, I don't think I need to point out to anyone how many of the Islamic extremist groups have perverted/misinterpreted Islamic beliefs. In fact, I think someone mentioned just that on this very thread.

BTW Daniel, my condolances to you and your (future) family.

[The Sisko]

One more BTW.

Some of my favorite books on the subject are:

A History of God by Karen Armstrong

A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker et. al.

When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein

[inmate running the asylum]

Yusuf06,

To answer your question I have spent many years researching the Bible, which is far more time then the average person, and far more time then I ever spent researching anything else. I suppose that after I was satisfied that the doctrines of the Bible were invalid and written by superstitious men, it was a matter of common sense, and I concluded that most of the others were also. I have read the Koran but I concluded that most of the other religions seem to be spin-offs of the major religions. For example the Sikhs, combine Hinduism and Islamic doctrines.

Yes, I am sure there are exceptions out there, but there is one thing they all seem to have in common. And that is since the beginning of time, man has worshipped thousands of gods, but none of the pastors, priests, rabbis, medicine men, shamans, etc., have ever been able to produce or prove the existence of a single god. So why all the need for mystery and secrecy with every religion? If a god is really out there, I am sure he could make himself known, whereby there would be no doubt in anyone's mind. For example, it is ridiculous to think that God left a message for people today, with a 2,000 year old event that cannot be proven, and we also don't even have a single copy of the original Bible [autograph].

Religions come and go and men and countries just go from one god to another. For example in ancient Iran [Persia] the religion use to be Mithraism and Zoroasterianism, but now these religions have been mainly abandoned and now it is Islam. So I have no need for any religion, especially in that most worship a God based on some kind of carrot-stick, reward-punishment type of system. If some god is going to punish me after I die for not believing in him, then he should not have given me a brain to reason with in the first place. After all you don't have to worship some god, to be a decent person.

Yusulf06, I would be interested in the details of your reasoning, as to how and why you never adopted the doctrines of the Christian church, but yet subsequently saw some religious truth in Islam. It interests me because the same cast of characters are in the Koran, that are in the three Bibles. So we have four major religions which are really a spin-off of the same God, but yet the people who worship these religions, have been killing each other over different interpretations for the last 2,000 years. And as I guess you also know, Islam also has four major interpretations which are: Hanafi, Shafai, Hanbali, and Maliki. So how do you know which one to believe? So just like the Christians, Muslims have also killed each other over these different interpretations.

And as you have probably seen on this thread, Mardi and I read the same words from the Bible, but rarely agree on what we have read. :doh:

[The Sisko]

I checked out a lot of other religions but none of them worked for me. I really couldn't get a handle on Hinduism but a lot of the others were quite interesting, just not for me.

Anyway, the reason I chose Islam was that I saw it as a purer form of Christianity. That is, I believe in the same God as I always did but I don't have the constant doubt (or in my case outright disbelief in) the whole trinity thing. Also, as it concerns science and innovation Islam has never had the conflict with science that Christendom has. So, there was never the nagging doubt that "well church doctrine is "X" but science has proven otherwise so...."

As it regards the schools of thought that you mentioned, as a Muslim by and large you are never required to chose any one of them. Nor will you ever see "Hanbali" Mosque "Shafi" Mosque etc. as you will "Lutheran" Church or "Baptist" Church etc. That's because the Islamic liturgy if you will is set in stone (with one exception) and so all the schools of thought that you mentioned worship the same way and hence almost any mosque that you go to will have adherents of many of those schools of thought. They govern not so much the collective as the personal practice of your faith.

The exception that I mentioned earlier, would be the one true schism in Islam that being Sunni/Shiite. The Shiite practice of worship is somewhat different than the predominant (Sunni) practice. Some folks feel pretty strongly about that. So much so that some Sunnis don't even accept Shiites as being muslim. As with many religious issues wars have even been fought over the it.

As for your point about Christians, Muslims, and Jews fighting each other over the centuries, I can only say that in terms of WHAT THE RELIGION SAYS (mind you I separate that from what people have sometimes done) Islam is the only one of the three that fully accepts the other two (I admit it helps that it was revealed after the others ). As worshippers of the same God, Christians and Jews were afforded a protected place in the Islamic state. Whereas the opposite was never true.

Most of the recent hatred between Jews and Muslims comes about over the creation of Israel. Prior to the creation of Israel Muslims and Jews for the most part got along even in that part of the world. However, it was the disenfranchisement of Arabs and the subsequent failure of then popular political movements (Pan Arabism, socialism etc.) to deal with it that has caused the popularity of Islamic extremism.

Like many things religion can be thought of as a tool. As such, it can be (and certainly has been) used for good or evil. Pencils aren't inherently evil but they can be used for good or evil. In some ways I think the same is true of religion.

As for your "carrot and stick" analogy, you deal with that every day. Life is all about actions and consequences. If I do something harmful or stupid more often than not, I have to deal with the consequences of my actions. Likewise, if you believe in God and don't do what he requires of you then there are going to be consequences. Frankly though, I don't see any reason why it should be any different. Who would want to adhere to anything, religion or otherwise where you can do whatever you want and still be rewarded ?

If however, you don't believe in God (which is always your right not as an American but as a human being since God grants us free will) you still have no choice but to adhere to his rules to a certain degree since you are almost always going to reap what you sow. You will have no choice but to adhere to the laws of the universe because you are a part of it. As such, even though you don't believe you still worship.

At the end of the day, nobody can say definitively that there is or is not a God. That is in fact the whole point. He doesn't reveal himself so that we may have the choice to believe or not. That's where faith comes in. However, I've never bought the line that well, there's actually something about our doctrine that nobody can explain and that just doesn't fit but you just have to have faith.

Anyways, I'll get down off my :soapbox: now.

[The Sisko]

BTW, I did come across the inaccuracies in the Bible that you spoke of and quite a few more to boot. That was another problem that I had with the church. They know full well what's in the Bible yet, they won't acknowlege it and deal with it. I suppose it'd cause some sort of crisis or something. However, if they just came forward and said well we've always accepted that this guy wrote this book, but it's well known that he didn't and there's an error here so we're going to go about fixing it or expunging it I'd have a lot more respect for them. As it stands, they just continue to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Conversely, to my knowlege nobody has ever found those sorts of errors in the Qur'an. Likewise, unlike with the Bible the first canonized Qur'an is still extant and can be reviewed compared to today's versions.

[mardi gras skin]

BTW, I did come across the inaccuracies in the Bible that you spoke of and quite a few more to boot. That was another problem that I had with the church. They know full well what's in the Bible yet, they won't acknowlege it and deal with it. I suppose it'd cause some sort of crisis or something. However, if they just came forward and said well we've always accepted that this guy wrote this book, but it's well known that he didn't and there's an error here so we're going to go about fixing it or expunging it I'd have a lot more respect for them. As it stands, they just continue to pretend that it doesn't exist.

Huh? Yusuf, believe me, if Inmate's assertions were valid, I'd be in the, "yep, the Bible's crap," camp. Inmate's claims have been the result of limited social understanding as well as verses being taken out of context. No different than an attorney who presents half-truths to sway a jury to his side.

You disagree. That's fine. But please don't tell me that the Bible being full of inaccuracies is a known FACT that Christians are hiding. That's insulting and it is a lie.

[inmate running the asylum]

Posted by Mardi

But please don't tell me that the Bible being full of inaccuracies is a known FACT that Christians are hiding. That's insulting and it is a lie.

Post Number 21:

Organized religion taught that the Bible was literally true for almost 2,000 years -- and harmed and murdered millions who did not believe this -- and now that people are more educated, organized religion has discovered that they cannot get away with this as easily as they once did. So now they are tweaking their doctrines to close up obvious absurd loopholes.

Now certain stories are no longer literally true, but we are told were really only poems, allegories, oral legends, etc., all along. Heaven and hell are no longer spoken of as "physical places," although they are described in the Bible as physical places. [Rev. 21:16] [Matt. 13:41-42][Mark 9:41-42] Instead priests and pastors now like to use euphemisms for heaven and hell, like "nearness or separation from God" which is now in vogue. When I asked Mardi whether Jesus said we will all burn in hell eternally if we don't believe in him, Mardi then answers with the euphemism "Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats" [Matt. 25: 31-46] Very clever.

Mere separation from God is not good enough for not believing. Mardi doesn't like to mention the FACT that Jesus wants to PUNISH everyone eternally -- with no forgiveness ever -- simply for the FACT that because we today were not around when he walked the earth, we have difficulty in believing in stories that defy the known laws of physics! This is one of my biggest bones of contention with Mardi. I have little doubt that Mardi is a nice guy personally, but attorneys could learn alot by taking a few courses at some seminary schools, and brushing up on the sophistry and casuistry they learn there. :laugh:

Understand Yusuf, that Mardi will always fail to see any inaccuracies in the Bible, until someone is able to locate and interview the talking snake which was in the Garden of Eden. And the fact that Adam gave birth to Eve in the Bible -- and not the other way around -- is not an inaccuracy in the bible but was simply an anomaly. :laugh:

[MD Daniel]

Man Inmate, you can sure be obnoxious, you know that?

I just wanted to deal with one thing... the defy the laws of physics thing... as this seems to be a big thing for people.

Let me tell you... I've seen and experienced things that can't be explained with and mere "laws" of physics. I've been a part of praying for people and having them be healed, not down the road have a successful surgery kind of get healing either. Plus other things like visions, knowing things... and just the normal everyday hear from God stuff. God can be known, the Spirit of God hasn't disappeared, and stuff that defies science still happens.

That is one thing I really regret with the modern church. They seem to be afraid of anything supernatural(and those who aren't are seem to get really strange). The "we believe it happened, but not any more" stance is such a shame. You know why? Because I've seen and experienced things that make it so I can never really doubt. These signs and wonders(as the bible likes to call them)were meant to be the groundwork for the gospel.

Ok, it's way past my bedtime... and this isn't stuff you will believe because I tell you anyways... it's stuff that needs to be experienced to believe it. So, I'm out...

Dan

[inmate running the asylum]

MD Daniel,

I'm not talking here about the so-called "miracles" you claim you have experienced in life. But even here from what you have vaguely mentioned above, there is nothing that I would consider that had defied the laws of physics.

I am talking about the supernatural miracles presented in the Bible which are unproven, such as talking animals; Peter and Jesus walking on water; invisible angels and devils; virgin births; devils being cast out of people into animals; dead people coming back alive; people who have been dead 4 days or longer, rising from their graves and walking around; invisible talking devils and angels; the parting of the Red Sea; witches; women being created from men's ribs; talking ghosts; and gods who had everyday conversations with mortal men, but no longer do today. The next time you see or experience one of these miracles, I would appreciate it if you would give me a call! :laugh:

Even then MD, I don't have any problem with you believing in the supernatural -- without any proof -- if that is what you choose to believe. After all millions of other people around the world today, also believe in voodoo, witches; ghosts, etc. Therefore you have a lot of company.

But where I think the Bible is absurd, is the doctrine that if I personally choose NOT to believe in Jesus and the other superstitious baloney, Jesus and the Christian doctrine threatens me by saying that I will burn in hell-fire forever. Then Christians try to convince myself and others that this is really a doctrine of love! For every time the word "love" appears in the Bible, there are ten examples of revenge, religious intolerance, hatred, pillage, rape, murder, killing, looting, etc., which God commanded!

If Jesus had stated love your neighbor "and if you don't believe in me, no problem".... then I would not have even bothered posting about this. But both God and Jesus state that they are all about revenge for nonbelievers, and there are many examples in the Bible to prove it. There have been and are decent Christians in the world, but the Christian doctrine of love as professed from the pages of the Bible is so absurd, it is laughable. :laugh:

So MD what have you specifically learned that is new, from this Assyrian Church of the East, that you can share with us? Do you have a complete Bible you study, written in Aramaic?

[mardi gras skin]

Organized religion taught that the Bible was literally true for almost 2,000 years

Inmate, don't be so thick. I believe that the Bible is literally true. Literally, the Bible says what it means in every passage. But no one has EVER believed the Bible to be literally true in the way you are describing literal truth.

The Bible says that Jacob is the "Rock of Israel" (Genesis 49:33-25), Samuel calls God a Rock (Samuel 22:47), Peter is called the Rock in the NT. If the Bible is "literally true" to your satisfaction, they would all have to be rocks, right? So are these also passages where the Bible is false because these men and God were not really rocks? By the standards you have set, you need to add these to your list of Biblical errors.

No Jew or Christian has ever believe that these passages were talking about a physical truth. Literally, God is not a rock, but spirit. Peter was not a rock, he was a man. But literally, God is MY rock. He is my spiritual anchor.

Can you not see this, or do you just refuse to see it? You are wrong when you say that organized religion taught that the Bible was literally true when you demand that literal truth be limited to the physical.

[mardi gras skin]

When I asked Mardi whether Jesus said we will all burn in hell eternally if we don't believe in him, Mardi then answers with the euphemism "Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats" [Matt. 25: 31-46] Very clever.

Thank you, but really it required almost no thought at all. I just found a passage on the subject you asked about and I linked the complete thought. I didn't take it out of context and I didn't make a single phrase or sentence say anything other than what it was intended to say. Note that I sourced 16 verses completing an entire thought on the subject you asked about.

Now, I think what you do is very clever inmate. You take one verse, isolate it from the context of the completed thought, and then make it say what you want it to say. That's a clever trick. It goes like this:

I will burn in hell-fire forever.

This is a direct quote from you, inmate. You believe that you are going to burn in hell forever. Don't deny it, Inmate, because I quoted you word for word. You think you will burn in hell-fire forever.

Of course the context of the entire paragraph would help to flesh out what you were saying, but since you don't take the time to consider the whole context when quoting the Bible, why should I when quoting you?

[mardi gras skin]

Mardi doesn't like to mention the FACT that Jesus wants to PUNISH everyone eternally -- with no forgiveness ever -- simply for the FACT that because we today were not around when he walked the earth, we have difficulty in believing in stories that defy the known laws of physics!

Is this a fact? Then you must believe in Jesus. If not, you would not have called it a fact.

But the form of Christianity you believe in is abhorrent to me. I do not believe that Jesus WANTS to punish everyone or anyone for anything. The sadistic Jesus you describe is not in the Bible. How do you explain Jesus' response when the rich young ruler walked away? How do you explain Jesus' call to the oppressed to find rest in him? (Matthew 11:28-30)

You see a Jesus eager to punish people. I see a Jesus who did everything he could to redeem people, short of forcing us to him against our will.

[mardi gras skin]

I have little doubt that Mardi is a nice guy personally, but attorneys could learn alot by taking a few courses at some seminary schools, and brushing up on the sophistry and casuistry they learn there.

Sorry for my subtlety. Allow me to be both accurate and direct. Jesus said we should love God and love people. The Bible claims to be the history of God's interaction with man. I believe the latter and I try to practice the former. Everything else is details.

[mardi gras skin]

Understand Yusuf, that Mardi will always fail to see any inaccuracies in the Bible, until someone is able to locate and interview the talking snake which was in the Garden of Eden.

I would settle for a conversation with a person who has a basic knowledge of first century social sciences and basic literary, form, or source criticism. Your 21 century Western bias makes communication here difficult given the nuances you are lifting from the Bible.

Not to be rude, but do you get first century Mediterranean Honor/Shame codes? Table fellowship? In grouping and out grouping? Family groupings, resource management, etc.? Its OK that you don't but you're lack of knowledge of the culture outside of the Bible is clouding what you are reading in the Bible, especially when it is being replaced with the dogma of your youth.

[The Sisko]

"You disagree. That's fine. But please don't tell me that the Bible being full of inaccuracies is a known FACT that Christians are hiding. That's insulting and it is a lie."

Mardi, I'm sorry if I insulted you. That wasn't the intent of my post. However, as I see it thems the facts. However, I will clarify my comment about Christians knowing about the inaccuracies in the Bible. When I said that I didn't mean your every day run of the mill types. I was speaking of Christian scholars.

I am a little short on time right now, but when I have a bit more time to dig out some things, I'll post exactly what I mean in terms of inaccuracies.

[mardi gras skin]

Please do. We every day run of the mill type Christians are interested.

[inmate running the asylum]

Post Number 22:

Yosuf there are hundreds of errors and inaccuracies in the Bible. Mardi just refuses to admit it. Somehow a perfect God could not produce a perfect Bible, although my 1966 Catholic Bible says in the foreword that there is not a single error in the Bible, otherwise God would not be perfect! Organized religion has promoted these lies now for about 2,000 years.

22-1 Even before the Tower of Babel story is told [Genesis 11: 6-9] we find inaccuracies and errors in the Bible. First we read there are MANY languages in existence and then we read that everyone on earth had the SAME language. God even makes the mistake in Gen. 11:9 of stating he “confused the language of the whole world,” forgetting that back in Genesis 10:4-5, people were already speaking different languages!

22-2 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.[Genesis 10:4-5] WHICH CONTRADICTS: And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. [Genesis 11:1]

22-3 - First we read that Solomon had 3300 supervisors, then it was 3600 supervisors. “Beside the chief of Solomon’s officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred [3300], which ruled over the people that wrought in the work. [i Kings 5:16 - KJB] WHICH CONTRADICTS: And Solomon told out three score and ten thousand men to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred [3600] to oversee them. [iI Chronicles 2:2]

22-4 - First we read where Joshua kills Jabin, king of Hazor, in the book of Joshua. But then in Judges, the next book of the Bible, we read that Jabin is alive and well! 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jabin, king of Hazor, had heard those things, that he sent to Jobab, king of Madon, and to the king of Shimron, and to the king of Achshaph. 11:10 And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor and smote the king thereof with the sword [killed] for Hazor before time was the head of all those kingdoms. [Joshua 11:1,10] WHICH CONTRADICTS: 4:2 And the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin, king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor......... [Judges 4:2]

22-5 - According to God, Aaron the brother of Moses, went up Mount Hor and died there. But then later we read in the next book of the Bible that Aaron dies again near some wells in Mosera. And Aaron the priest went up into mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord and died there....[Numbers 33:38] WHICH CONTRADICTS: And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died and there he was buried; .... [Deut. 10:6]