7 comments/ 3461 views/ 0 favorites Fundamentalists and the Bible 02 By: wistfall1 In the first essay, The Bible, Fundamentalists & Lesbian Sex, sixty-four (64) major errors were found along with eight (8) probable errors, and that in only the first eight (8) chapters of Genesis. The reason for that first essay is to combat the hatred that the Fundamentalist/Evangelical preachers are spewing from their pulpits from believing that what's in the Bible is God's inerrant (error free) word, and therefore all should be bound by it as law, even now, and unto stoning for trivial things. Frankly, as seen in the first essay, I wonder at why no one has sought to charge them with hate crimes since they are sometimes seeking to have lesbians killed because it's supposed to be against God's law. That is trying to usurp the separation of church and state, and override the laws of our land, as well as inciting people to do hateful and harmful things to innocent others. Read the first essay to see the quotes that some of these people have made regarding their desire to see all homosexuals die, or be killed outright. I initially said lesbians, but it is a fact that it is all but heterosexuals that they condemn and seek to have punished with God's supposed old law as in the Old Testament. There's not much difference between the Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals and the Taliban, or other fundamentalist believers of Islam. They are pretty vociferous in their beliefs, and frankly, traumatizing to those lesbians who dare not say what they know within their persons that they are, namely, women who love women which the Bible does not explicitly condemn though the Bible is extra explicit about condemning so much else. One can write some hate words on a wall, and not necessarily a church wall, or a synagogue or mosque wall, or any other religious wall, and they will be charged with a hate crime. How much more is it an outright hate crime to openly and quite publicly cry out for death to all homosexuals? The old sticks and stones may hurt me but not words adage seems to be working in reverse here. Those preachers are outright seeking with their words to incite a too eager parishioner, congregant, or some other to go out and do God's work as their preacher sees it. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: do any hear a loud clamor against those supposedly in service to the same God when they are found to have raped some young girl, including on their church grounds or building, or in fact, in any place. Think about it please. Way back when in the seventies or eighties, there was a preacher, last name of Swaggart, who was found to be "consorting" with prostitutes. Shamelessly he came out in his church and cried his crocodile tears, and confessed, "I have sinned." What was said back then? Typically, it was a believer, and not a preacher who was quoted as saying: "It's washed in the blood." In other words, forget it, it's no big thing if you confess it. My, my, such belief. As I said, it was a poor deluded and ignorant believer who said it. Was there any outcry from the preachers though, or their higher ups? No. Then there was that Baker fellow who was also caught as having seduced a church member, and his "staff" knew of it, in fact it was thought that his staff may have set it up for him. Was there an outcry from preachers about it? Not that any could tell, that was for sure. Things like that are kept quiet. That was way back then though some will say. Uh-huh. What about in a huge church in Hammond, Indiana where the preacher has been said to be having sex with a young lady (don't recall her age, but it wasn't much). Has there been an outcry? No, just news people reporting, then the thunderous sound of silence. They keep these little things in house, and, I guess, wash them in the blood. Is that all I have? No way. Now, more recently, and in fact, in September, 2012, there is the rape of a young girl in a Tulsa mega church of some 17,000 people. They kept it quiet for two weeks. Where is the outcry from the Catholic church, or any other church about this? Are these rapes less than homosexuality in their minds, that bothers no innocent, and is wholly consensual? It's saying that what bothers the beliefs of some is of greater harm than the actual infliction of traumatic and very possibly harmful long term, real harm to an innocent child. It smacks of shameful hypocrisy! Need anyone again be reminded about the Catholic church and its ongoing woes for having so many pedophile priests that they knew about and shifted to other cities, states, or out of the country to keep them from being prosecuted, or which allowed them to continue to perpetrate their sick needs on more innocent children? Need anyone be told of how they tried to blame parents for not being "watchful" of their children all the while preaching that their priests are a direct connection to God through them in confessional, and to tell your local priest every single sin? Yes, this did happen in a very public outcry by the Catholic church in the Cleveland area. Oh, the hypocrisy, and all the way to the top to this present pope and to his successor too, and goodness only knows how many else. No worries though, they make them saints as they did over a thousand years ago, or bring them into the halls of power as they did Bishop Law of Boston. Oh, that's the Catholics, you say. How about the Tribes Mission who bamboozled parents to both go out to preach to the ignorant about God so that they'd have time and opportunity to rape their children left in their care? The truth is that there is no hollering, no parading against such "sinning" by God's own, no outcry, just that god awful sound of their silence. Why? Where is their outrage at a real actual and factual injustice? But let a lesbian feel that it's in her to love with another woman, and the sounds of silence are nowhere for the din of their condemnation of something that isn't even anywhere in the Bible. They shout it from the rooftops and demand God's law of death. Once more, pure hypocrisy. Don't believe me? Look it up. I challenge anyone to find it in the Bible as a woman loving another woman being prohibited. One such of these idiot preachers of hate is Pat Robertson, but even he has said that "oral sex" is okay because it's not "specified" in the Bible. Okay, not "specified" is the operative word. Where in the Bible is it "specified" that lesbianism is a sin against their God? It isn't, but I think one of the many translations thought they had a way around that since believers believe whatever they are told is God's word, The Good News, I think it is, that has injected the word "homosexual" in the Bible as being condemned by God so as to cover it all though there may not even be a word such as homosexual in the Hebrew language (at least one Internet site says that to its knowledge none is known to exist). For sure the so-called up to date Bibles do not use the word homosexual. So what, that's nothing new. Many people have "injected" what they thought God should have said, or meant. That's true. They have, and you can find it for yourself, and very easily, in your Bible, Good News or not. There are two very different versions of Noah and his fabled ark. There is Jesus saying that his generation shall not pass away before all of the dire happenings he is said to have prophesized came true, and so did Paul, but when it didn't happen in "this generation", it was changed, supposedly by Paul. There are definitely two different versions of who laughed, and when, Abraham or Sarah, when it was supposedly said by God, or some godly messengers, that Sarah would have a child by Abraham, though if it's preached about, it is Sarah, "the woman", who laughs at God's word, and not the man, Abraham. That's how it goes though—"It was the woman" who put the laughter in my mouth. Yes, I have heard it stressed several times from the pulpit that God's ability to work miracles is a fact, and that it was Sarah that laughed when she hears she will have a child regardless of menopause, but until I read it for myself, I had no idea that Abraham also is said by the Bible to have laughed at the same thing, but in a different setting. It makes one wonder if the preachers know of this contradiction of just who it was that did the laughing. If they did know, do they ascribe this to the probability of at least two different writers, for why would one writer wish to give conflicting views of the same story? For sure, it was no god or God that wrote or had the Bible written for it is chock full of errors and contradictions that no god would make, much less the God. It is necessary to continue to tell the truth of the lies, that the Bible is not without error, or inerrant as they like to formally say. The Bible, in point of fact, is full of errors, period! If sixty-three (63) errors in the first eight chapters of the first book of the Bible, Genesis, isn't enough to stop their crying out that homosexuality is against God's law, then the exposure of more of those lies must continue. This essay, and possibly others to come, seeks to do just that. You don't hear of any of them fighting loudly with those who mow their lawns on whatever they deem the Sabbath to be, but a man in the Bible was said to be stoned for picking up sticks. He was "working" on the Sabbath, so death to him. If they truly want to be like the Taliban, they need to scream at every violation of the Law and condemn them, and that includes any who have ham for Easter, or whenever. Such hypocrisy. They wish to rule everyone else's sexuality, but when it's one of their own, silence rules, and never mind God, he had his head turned so he needn't be bothered. Right! So let's get to it. Let's see how far we can go in revealing what's really said by the Bible, and where. There's no hiding here. If something looks like it should be there, or well may be there, it is said, as will be seen when we look at historical facts which are used here, but only known historical facts as only scientific facts are used unless otherwise known. However, it's often the Bible itself that gives testimony to its own lies. Huh? You say—"How's that?" Only unless otherwise known from science? Yes. For example, gravity is only a theory, however, test if from a few stories up and you will find it a good working theory. It hasn't failed yet that we know of. That kind of "unless otherwise known" fact. * * * * In this essay, all of the verses will not necessarily be considered, nor all of the chapters. The only consideration is whether or not the Bible can be taken literally as the Fundamentalists/Evangelicals claim it should be, or not so, and if it is without error so should be followed as the law of the land. As one cited person in the previous essay said, it's what the bible says that's important, and nothing else is, she left to be implied. In other words, as the many Fundamentalists/Evangelicals say, if God said, then it is so, and the Bible is God's word. We shall see (as we have already). Is there really more; are there truly more than the sixty-three errors to be found after the first eight chapters of Genesis? Yes, from the first essay, it was factually pointed out that there are at least sixty-four (64) major errors in just the first eight chapters of the Book of Genesis, along with eight (8) probable errors. Additionally, since it is Christians in the form of Fundamentalists/Evangelicals, etc., that claim the Bible as a whole is God's inerrant (without error) word that lays open the very foundation of Christianity itself. In other words, is the God of the Christian Bible God, or is he a made up God? The errors in the Bible should be the sole judges of that claim as is proper. It will be continued to use five (5) asterisks ***** to indicate a major error, and two (2) asterisks to indicate a probable error. The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is being used in the essays, but on occasion, other bibles are considered for verification of certain claims needing further backing. In the previous essay, it stopped after chapter eight (8) of the book of Genesis. In this essay, we begin with chapter 9 of the book of Genesis. To be very clear, and as information, there is no claim being made here that there is no God. As far as anyone can tell, there is no way to factually prove that there is, or is not, a God, or a Goddess. There are simply those who believe one way or the other: Fundamentalist and Evangelicals believe, as well as other Christians and religions of other faiths, that there is a God, and some that believe in multiple Gods, and others also believe that there is a God, but subscribe to no known religion. The only concern here is whether or not the God of the Christian Bible is true and believable in its written word, and therefore without error, since a god does not make errors, or say, or write, or have written anything that is erroneous, this being what the Fundamentalist/Evangelicals, etc., believe and preach from, including that the Bible, and God himself, calls for death to all homosexuals. This is patently not true of lesbians, not that excluding lesbians from that belief will make any difference; seeking death per God's inerrant word makes all the difference if that word is in error, or a fictive. Readers are encouraged to prove for themselves all that is claimed as an error in this essay. No claim of having any truth is made here, only the exposing of lies in the Bible, intentional or not. Thank you for reading, and more, if you agree with what is written here, please pass this on to any lesbians that you know of for many have been lied to, shamed, humiliated, and terrorized by misguided preachers with the threat of eternal fires in hell for simply being what their bodies tell them that they are, and to love as is in them to love. The brutal psychological beating that is rendered to them is a horrible thing for them to bear, especially if there is no valid reason for such treatment. Thank you again. What is in Italics is from the Bible, as are the chapter and verses. Genesis 9 The Covenant with Noah 1 God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. All was declared good in chapter 1 of Genesis, but it wasn't for "the serpent" was in the garden with Adam and Eve, and God had not told them that he wasn't really "good." They were commanded to multiply, and we're told they did their best for all was "good." Then later, in Noah's time, he destroyed it all for it wasn't good, and all that was on land (and maybe in the sea too) was destroyed save an indecipherable number of animals along with Noah, his wife, their three children and their children's wives. So now God has told Noah to replenish the earth again. Sounds like a schizophrenic God these men are creating for everyone to believe, one that is real scary. 2 The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Is this to say that all the animals were tame insofar as people were concerned? That is incredible; far too unbelievable to believe. If there was wickedness galore on earth before the flood, then none of the animals had a chance to live for they had to be tame before this saying in verse 2, for they would have been killed by wicked men, so why were they killed by the flood to begin with? Perhaps it was because the "warriors", "the men of renown" had killed them all off, or mostly, so why not let the flood kill the few that were left? On the face of it, it is ridiculous. Is a crocodile afraid of any human? Or a hyena, or a lion, or any snake, especially a constricting snake? As it reads, this is an error to be sure. ***** 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Okay, now all animals are on the menu for people. All? So why did he later forbid them to eat some types of animals in later books, as I'm sure we're all familiar with to some degree? Once again, God is not acting like a real God, but like men who are not sure what they are saying, the contradictions they are putting in their God's mouth. Another error to be sure. ***** Oh, and it says "I give you everything." Then why later was pork taken off of the menu. Did God forget about pork not being good, or the many other animals that were later taken off the menu? We'll have to try to remember to mark an error later on when those animals are off the menu when God changes his mind again just as if he were a human being. Or is this God simply a human being or an idea made up in the human mind of what a god is supposed to be like? It sure seems like it. 4 Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Oops! Just don't eat, er, drink their blood. Cook it real well first. Good idea. That keeps germs away, for the most part, but is that it? I suspect not, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 5 For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life. In this, silly though it seems at first reading, God is saying that any animal that kills a human will answer to God for it. That's what it reads like. So God turns the lion, the tiger, the crocodile, etc., that he has made, and saved from the flood, and now denies them the right to do as was put in them to do? Four bibles say similarly, and I must confess, this sounds unreal to me. However, as it is written, and as it infers, this too, is an unbelievable major error in the Bible. ***** 6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind. This is interesting, for now we definitely see that men wrote this supposedly Holy Scripture, and not Moses as some say, as we shall see later. How do we know this? It says above that "...in his own image God made humankind", not I made human kind, or even the strange "we", or "us" made humankind, but "God", as in someone else wrote this. The last two lines indicate that another human will shed the blood of anyone who has shed the blood of a human since it is God's way, and man is the image of God. God's way? Perhaps this was true to the Israelites who, on orders from God through Moses or some other, took every life in a town, or a battle as in various places in the Old Testament. According to our ways in the West, this is not how we say we will do, but their culture was different. Which now begs the question of whether or not this was written by men who would demand revenge. Yes, the Bible has God saying that Vengeance belongs to him [Deuteronomy, Chapter 36, verse 35 and other places in both Old and New Testament], but this negates it, and further indicates different men writing the Bible. As such, it is an error. ***** 7 And you, be fruitful and multiply, abound on the earth and multiply in it.' 8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 'As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark. 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.' 12 God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.' 17 God said to Noah, 'This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.' Fundamentalists and the Bible 02 This "bow in the clouds" has been interpreted as being a rainbow. If so, it is a natural occurring phenomenon of the sun's light being diffracted by moisture molecules and thus showing the visible spectrum of light. This is physics, not any God. ***** Noah and His Sons 18 The sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled. 20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, 'Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.' 26 He also said, 'Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. First, verse 18 leads us to believe that the three sons left each other's company, and went to their respective lands. Though that may not have been immediately, it still leaves open the question of how they could possibly have survived just as that question was laid at the feet of Adam and Eve. The only things they had in the ark, other than each other, were animals and food which surely could not have lasted for a year or so as dictated by the size of the ark (see the first essay on Noah, animals, food, and the ark). No tools are mentioned, no weapons. Next, Noah is drunk and naked, and Ham sees him but does not cover him; for this he was cursed, and his descendants were to be slaves to his brothers' descendants? This is a rather pitiful and petty thing to do for a small transgression, tainting all because of the one. Then again, they had to make up something to claim the main land they claimed. And so the Israelites were to take the land of Canaan? 27 May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.' 28 After the flood Noah lived for three hundred and fifty years. 29 All the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died. There were one thousand, five hundred, and fifty-seven years to the flood. They were in the ark for a year, perhaps a few days over that. If Noah lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood, then it has been one thousand, nine hundred and eight (1,908) years from Adam's birth/creation according to the bible. There are five (5) major errors in chapter 9 of Genesis, as well as much that is questionable. Genesis 10 Nations Descended from Noah 1 These are the descendants of Noah's sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth; children were born to them after the flood. 2 The descendants of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. 3 The descendants of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 The descendants of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim. 5 From these the coastland peoples spread. These are the descendants of Japheth in their lands, with their own language, by their families, in their nations. 6 The descendants of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. 7 The descendants of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The descendants of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. 8 Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior. This last verse is a direct contradiction to earlier verses before the flood wherein we were told that there were mighty warriors, men of renown in the land. This is an error of major proportions. ***** 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, 'Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.' 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. 11 From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and 12 Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. 13 Egypt became the father of Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, 14 Pathrusim, Casluhim, and Caphtorim, from which the Philistines come. This last verse is also in error if Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, or it was dictated to him. The Philistines were unknown until the days of Rameses III, and were a part of several "sea peoples" who invaded Egypt, and lost the battle according to Rameses III. No one but his people recorded it as far as can be determined, but no Philistine argued against it. This is a major error that will be repeated time and again later on. For now, it is an error. ***** 15 Canaan became the father of Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, 16 and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, 17 the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, 18 the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterwards the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. 19 And the territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon, in the direction of Gerar, as far as Gaza, and in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. 20 These are the descendants of Ham, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations. 21 To Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, children were born. 22 The descendants of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. 23 The descendants of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash. 24 Arpachshad became the father of Shelah; and Shelah became the father of Eber. 25 To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Joktan. 26 Joktan became the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 27 Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 28 Obal, Abimael, Sheba, 29 Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the descendants of Joktan. 30 The territory in which they lived extended from Mesha in the direction of Sephar, the hill country of the east. 31 These are the descendants of Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations. 32 These are the families of Noah's sons, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood. If these are the lands, nations, of Ham, Japeth, and Shem, then Shem and Ham were father to two of the same lands, nations. Compare verses 7, and 28-29 for Sheba and Havilah. We do know that Sheba was considered a land, and Havilah also. This is a probable error. There may be others, but these stand out. ** There are two (2) major errors and one (1) probable error in chapter 10 of Genesis. Genesis 11 The Tower of Babel 1 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, 'Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.' 5 The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. 6 And the Lord said, 'Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech.' The Lord comes down to see what is going on. Doesn't he know what is going on as a real God would? Then the Lord, in verse 6, speaks to someone else who apparently is with him, telling them 'Look...' Who is with God? This is another error as will be seen as below in the next verse. God, apparently, says, in verse 7, 'Come, let us...' Who is the "us" here? Another major error repeated from earlier chapters. ***** 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused* the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. Descendants of Shem 10 These are the descendants of Shem. When Shem was one hundred years old, he became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood; 11 and Shem lived after the birth of Arpachshad for five hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 12 When Arpachshad had lived for thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah; 13 and Arpachshad lived after the birth of Shelah for four hundred and three years, and had other sons and daughters. Arpachshad had to have married either a younger sister, or a niece, which, according to the Bible, was not unusual (see verse 29 following for Nahor's wife being Milcah, the daughter of Nahor's brother, Haran, or so the Bible says. 14 When Shelah had lived for thirty years, he became the father of Eber; 15 and Shelah lived after the birth of Eber for four hundred and three years, and had other sons and daughters. 16 When Eber had lived for thirty-four years, he became the father of Peleg; 17 and Eber lived after the birth of Peleg for four hundred and thirty years, and had other sons and daughters. 18 When Peleg had lived for thirty years, he became the father of Reu; 19 and Peleg lived after the birth of Reu for two hundred and nine years, and had other sons and daughters. 20 When Reu had lived for thirty-two years, he became the father of Serug; 21 and Reu lived after the birth of Serug for two hundred and seven years, and had other sons and daughters. 22 When Serug had lived for thirty years, he became the father of Nahor; 23 and Serug lived after the birth of Nahor for two hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. 24 When Nahor had lived for twenty-nine years, he became the father of Terah; 25 and Nahor lived after the birth of Terah for one hundred and nineteen years, and had other sons and daughters. 26 When Terah had lived for seventy years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Though it doesn't say how many additional sons and daughters any of them had, nor when, we can't help but have the impression that they're claiming, without actually claiming, that in all the years each person cited in verses 10 through 26, that they kept on having sons and daughters for all of their years. This, of course, would not be correct due to the female having less than forty-two (42) years worth of eggs in her body. With that, we can safely say that there are probable errors to be ascribed to these nine men insofar as fathering sons and daughters throughout their years, so two asterisks. ** times nine (9) Of possible greater importance, as we will see later on, from the time Noah stepped out of the ark was one thousand five hundred fifty-eight years from the birth/creation of Adam. With four total families now alive on the earth after the flood, it would be two hundred and ninety-two years to the birth of Abram (later renamed by God, Abraham). This will be extremely important shortly. Descendants of Terah 27 Now these are the descendants of Terah. Terah was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran was the father of Lot. 28 Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans. 29 Abram and Nahor took wives; the name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah. She was the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah. 30 Now Sarai was barren; she had no child. 31 Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter Sarai, his son Abram's wife, and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there. 32 The days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran. There is one (1) major error and nine (9) probable errors in chapter 11 of Genesis. Genesis 12 The Call of Abram 1 Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2 I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' 4 So Abram went, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. From one thousand eight hundred and fifty (1,850) years from Adam to Abram's birth, and Abram now at seventy-five, it is now one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five (1,925) years from Adam to Abram leaving Haran, and three hundred and sixty-seven (367) years from the time the ark was left. 5 Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother's son Lot, and all the possessions that they had gathered, and the persons whom they had acquired in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan. When they had come to the land of Canaan, 6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7 Then the Lord appeared to Abram, and said, 'To your offspring* I will give this land.' So he built there an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. 8 From there he moved on to the hill country on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the Lord and invoked the name of the Lord. 9 And Abram journeyed on by stages towards the Negeb. Bethel, as pointed out previously that the writer and religious researcher, Karen Armstrong says, means House of El, El being the mighty god of the Canaanites. As a couple of points of curiosity, does this mean that since verse 7 above says that this is where the Lord appeared to Abram, that the Lord is the Canaanite god, El? Second, if this is the Canaanite god El, is it El that promised to give what belongs to Canaanites, the people who worship him as El, land to foreigners without saying why he is displeased with those Canaanites who worship him? Nowhere are we told what "name" to call the Lord though we are left thinking it had to be El, the God of the Canaanites. For Fundamentalists, there are two (2) probable errors. ** X 2. Abram and Sarai in Egypt 10 Now there was a famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to reside there as an alien, for the famine was severe in the land. 11 When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, 'I know well that you are a woman beautiful in appearance; 12 and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, "This is his wife"; then they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that it may go well with me because of you, and that my life may be spared on your account.' 14 When Abram entered Egypt the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. 15 When the officials of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. 16 And for her sake he dealt well with Abram; and he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female slaves, female donkeys, and camels. 17 But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife. 18 So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, 'What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, "She is my sister", so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife; take her, and be gone.' 20 And Pharaoh gave his men orders concerning him; and they set him on the way, with his wife and all that he had. There is so much wrong with sequence of verses. Any who are well versed in the Bible, such as preachers are supposed to be, would know this. I'll do a little jumping (but not much at all) to prove a point about these verses concerning Egypt and Pharaoh. First, we do know that Lot was said to be with Abram, but he isn't mentioned in the sequence, just Abram and his wife, Sarai (to later be renamed Sarah), yet he is said to be with Abram in the next chapter so it has to be assumed that Lot was with them in Egypt. Second, according to chapter 17, verse 17, Abram is one hundred (100) years old, and Sarai ninety (90) years old, a ten year difference. Third, in chapter 12, verse 4, Abram is seventy-five when they left their homeland in Haran (near the southeastern border of modern day Turkey), traveled south to Canaan as the Lord commanded him to, then pitched his tent west of Bethel where he took time to build an altar, and subsequently traveled "by stages" to the Negeb. Walking as they most likely did, it must have taken a lot of time, then stopping, and later "by stages", going to the Negeb. This is important as will be shown shortly. Fourth, it can safely be assumed that the going was very slow with the herds Lot is said to have in the next chapter, so Sarah is at least sixty-six when they go into Egypt, and possibly a year or two older. Fifth, though life is difficult as they lived, and traveling hard, we're told that Sarai, though sixty-six, (66) and probably older, is so beautiful that Pharaoh, who has his pick of women, will desire her? This is unbelievable for the elements had to be rough on her quite un-pampered life. Sixth, Abram is so hungry he goes to where his supposedly beautiful wife will be desired enough for her beauty to cause Abram to be killed? Seventh, it is obvious that Pharaoh has sex with Saria for he has given Abram many animals and slaves. This is all ludicrous, a fantasy a man dreamed up to make the history of the people what they thought would be not only needed, but believed. For the storyteller here, and for the ridiculousness of it all, this is an error. ***** The ages are way too far-gone to even come close to being believable. Lastly, and just about as bad as any error yet found, is that they go to Egypt which is said to have a Pharaoh (a king). This land, we're told, has plenty of everything including, apparently, food, flocks of all sorts, gold, and silver. The impression is that Egypt is already a great nation not only with a ruler, but also have "officials" as if there is a hierarchy as well as a bureaucracy. Abram is given much in trade for his "sister", Sarai, whom the Bible says Pharaoh took to his wife, which implies very strongly, he had sex with her, following which God is displeased and afflicts Egypt with plagues. This is the second instance of Patriarchy, the first being Eve as the one who brought humanity down, but in this case, Sarai is property to be given away at the behest of her lord and master, her husband. What is ludicrous about all of this is that Egypt alone is implied to be a great nation, and the time since the end of the flood is only three hundred and sixty-seven years (367). Think about it. Two people, having to make a life, to survive, and again, no tools that we know of, and the animals were set free to go where they were supposed to go. They populate many lands with nothing to survive with, or very little. More, how is it that the animals procreate so fast as to have great riches of flocks in one place, and those animals include those that are to be hunters now that animals and grass are given as food? Even more, how is it that those who had to spend so much time simply surviving had time to learn how to mine for precious metals such as gold and silver. First you have to find the metals, then you have to dig them up, and quite crudely, then the precious metals have to be separated from the earth and whatever else the metals desired are mixed in with. Fundamentalists and the Bible 02 A mine takes a long time to build, and panning for gold isn't how one finds so much of it that they become rich. Again, think about it. One man and his wife alone departed from his two other brothers to father many lands. Once again, we are faced with whether to believe that two people could wander off as Adam and Eve are said to have done, and survive to found many nations, including one as great as Egypt is implied to be at this time. This is surely pure speculative fantasy on the part of the writer, but then the people are ignorant, and can't read, spending most of their time surviving. As such, it must be considered an error. More will be told momentarily, but in the meantime, mark this up as an error in the Bible. ***** By the way, why would God pick Abram to talk to, and tell him he's to be made a great nation, and then sends him to Egypt to have his "beautiful", though old wife, taken by Pharaoh for a wife. What was the sense in making this up, and putting it into a "holy" book? Is there rhyme or reason for this tale? There are two (2) major errors and two (2) probable errors in chapter 12 of Genesis. Genesis 13 Abram and Lot Separate 1 So Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the Negeb. Here we see that Lot was with Abram in Egypt. 2 Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold. 3 He journeyed on by stages from the Negeb as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai, 4 to the place where he had made an altar at the first; and there Abram called on the name of the Lord. 5 Now Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents, And here we are told, as was assumed previously, that if Abram did not have flocks and herds, Lot did have flocks and herds and tents, all making travel slow and difficult, and Sarai already menopausal, and most likely weary. 6 so that the land could not support both of them living together; for their possessions were so great that they could not live together, 7 and there was strife between the herders of Abram's livestock and the herders of Lot's livestock. At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites lived in the land. 8 Then Abram said to Lot, 'Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herders and my herders; for we are kindred. 9 Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left.' 10 Lot looked about him, and saw that the plain of the Jordan was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar; this was before the Lord had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. 11 So Lot chose for himself all the plain of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed eastwards; thus they separated from each other. 12 Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled among the cities of the Plain and moved his tent as far as Sodom. 13 Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord. 14 The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, 'Raise your eyes now, and look from the place where you are, northwards and southwards and eastwards and westwards; 15 for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring for ever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. If verse16 was talking about the Jews only, that has not happened. If it was talking about Jews and Arabs, it still has not happened. There's more dust in the earth than can be counted. Consulting the King James Version, The New International Version, and a Catholic Bible, all say "dust" as does The New Revised Standard Version used in this essay. This is an obvious error. ***** 17 Rise up, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.' 18 So Abram moved his tent, and came and settled by the oaks of Mamre, which are at Hebron; and there he built an altar to the Lord. There is one (1) major error in chapter 13 of Genesis. Genesis 14 Lot's Captivity and Rescue 1 In the days of King Amraphel of Shinar, King Arioch of Ellasar, King Chedorlaomer of Elam, and King Tidal of Goiim, 2 these kings made war with King Bera of Sodom, King Birsha of Gomorrah, King Shinab of Admah, King Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3 All these joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea). 4 For twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and subdued the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, 6 and the Horites in the hill country of Seir as far as El-paran on the edge of the wilderness; 7 then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and subdued all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who lived in Hazazon-tamar. 8 Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out, and they joined battle in the Valley of Siddim 9 with King Chedorlaomer of Elam, King Tidal of Goiim, King Amraphel of Shinar, and King Arioch of Ellasar, four kings against five. 10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits; and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into them, and the rest fled to the hill country. 11 So the enemy took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their provisions, and went their way; 12 they also took Lot, the son of Abram's brother, who lived in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. 13 Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, who was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and of Aner; these were allies of Abram. 14 When Abram heard that his nephew had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15 He divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and routed them and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus. 16 Then he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his nephew Lot with his goods, and the women and the people. Offhandedly the above history and kings looks plausible with regards to most of it. Like most others who've looked at this, preachers included, I'd never delved into it, but since I'm looking at it closely this time, I did look into it via the Internet. Searching the Internet, it seems that Amraphel, king of Shinar may have been Hammurabi, and Shinar is Babylonia, and the time may be something in the range of 1750-1792 BCE, but nothing is certain about these possible facts. What seems certain, and scholars who research this can probably say, is that there were powers in the East, Elam being somewhere in the vicinity of present day Iran, Ellasar somewhere in Central Babylonia, and oddly, Tidal, or Tudhaliya, the king of nations, is a goyim, or none-semite, ruler possibly of Lagros mountain area. We're all pretty much familiar with Hammurabi, and we're familiar with the fact that there were indeed warrior nations, and there is a historical possibility/probability that these nations held sway over much of Canaan to the Dead Sea, as well as Sodom and Gomorrah. It is also possible that there was a war as stated in verse 2, and also possible that there was a rebellion as in verse 4. It is also possible that there was another rebellion as in verses 8-10. So what's the problem? Let's pause a moment. War and vassal nations The above verses tell of fourteen years of war and rebellion by nations, small though they were, but several, with the known powers of the Middle East at that time. Egypt also had to be a power, but apparently didn't hold sway over Canaan though Sodom and Gomorrah were most likely close to the southern portion of the Dead Sea, and as such, were pretty close to Egypt. It appears that prior to this time, Egypt had been prosperous and mighty, but suddenly fell, reasons not known, but was still Egypt, though not far into the future, what are called Hyksos would take over much of Egypt. One thing that stands out to highlight the point I'm about to make is that a Pharaoh in the recent past of this time had ten thousand (10,000) men loyal to him. If we look again at verses 8 through 10, then at verse 14, in this last verse we are told that Abram had three hundred and eighteen men trained in his house, we begin to suspect a few things being wrong. Many researchers with objective eyes are coming to find that the Pentatuech (the five books of Moses), Genesis through Deuteronomy, were actually written by intellectuals brought to Babylon when Babylonia destroyed Jerusalem and their temple. Those intellectuals are now thought to have written the first five books in the five hundreds (500s) BCE in somewhat the form we have now, though alterations since then are suspected to have been made. Some of those intellectuals were probably familiar with the history of Canaan as well as of Egypt. Let's now look back again to the "time of Abram", and seek to put all of this together, with the knowledge that several of these Eastern powers must have had large armies for the time, and that there were four (4) of them. In verse 14, we're told Abram had three (3) allies, but it says nothing about their numbers, but is very specific about Abrams "army" being three hundred and eighteen (318). At this point, we have to doubt that Abram could have had enough men to defeat the armies making their way back home to Babylonia, Elam, etc. What it seems likely to have been thought was to take this tale and paste it onto vaguely known history, but stretch facts tremendously. In other words, this is too fantastic a tale to come close to being believable, and therefore an error in the Bible. ***** To further point to this, when Abram made his way to Egypt with his wife, there is no mention of herds, nor any mention of three hundred-eighteen men trained in his house. Considering this, it isn't too difficult to see that this information was a large part of what was tacked onto possibly known history. Or, why was Lot said to have flocks and herds, but not Abram, and why does it seem as if Abram and Sarai are pretty much alone, and Abram thereby needing to protect himself though it is later said he had all those men trained in his house? If we look at it in this light, we can't help but see fabrication in this story and bad fabrication at that. For the three hundred-eighteen men said to be at Abram's command, we say this is a major error in the Bible also. ***** Abram Blessed by Melchizedek 17 After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley). 18 And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. 19 He blessed him and said, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; 20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!' This also is odd. There are two (2) mentions of Melchizedek in the Old Testament, and this is the first one. Salem, of which he is said to be king, is most likely a part of what we know of as Jerusalem, or Jeru and Salem. Melchizedek also seems to be made up, invented by the writers of the Bible. More, notice once again that there is no name for God other than to be called God Most High. As previously stated, El was considered the high god of Canaanites. Psalm 82 speaks of God standing in the congregation of the mighty judging among the gods, and mentions "the most High," presumably the mighty god of the Canaanites, El. Since there is no Yahweh, or Jehovah at this time, this god must be other than the god of Moses. That the Jews were a nation that worshipped many gods has been known by biblical researchers for some time. There can be no errors ascribed to Melchizedek, nor to God Most High for it cannot be said that this is an error, but it is worth remembering that Abram tithed a tenth to the priest of this god, and apparently not to Yahweh, or Jehovah. Then again, we don't know what god "spoke" to Abram. This is all very curious and wholly uncertain, and should be uncertain to everyone, including Fundamentalists/Evangelicals who assume which god is being mentioned. And Abram gave him one-tenth of everything. 21 Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, 'Give me the people, but take the goods for yourself.' 22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, 'I have sworn to the Lord, God Most High,* maker of heaven and earth, 23 that I would not take a thread or a sandal-thong or anything that is yours, so that you might not say, "I have made Abram rich. 24 I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me—Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. Let them take their share.' Once more we are told of the three allies of Abram, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, but nothing of any men they might have had. Intelligent though the writers of these first five books of the Bible were, they knew nothing about war, but did know that just about all of their countrymen could neither read nor write so no problem. Apparently they never thought of these writings being used by other than their own people who would, in their minds, always be pastoral and ignorant so writing whatever seemed as if it would be logical to them and therefore to their audience, was no problem. There are two (2) major errors in chapter 14 of Genesis. Genesis 15 God's Covenant with Abram 1 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, 'Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.' 2 But Abram said, 'O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?' 3 And Abram said, 'You have given me no offspring, and so a slave born in my house is to be my heir.' 4 But the word of the Lord came to him, 'This man shall not be your heir; no one but your very own issue shall be your heir.' 5 He brought him outside and said, 'Look towards heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them.' Then he said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.' This has not happened. There are over a trillion stars in the sky, but regardless, Jews have not been countless at any time. An error in the Bible. ***** 6 And he believed the Lord; and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness. 7 Then he said to him, 'I am the Lord who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess.' This is not correct. Abram's father, Terah, moved them from Ur to Haran, and per chapter 11, verse 31, and in chapter 12, verses 1 through 4, it was out of Haran that Abram was called out of. This is an obvious error in the Bible. ***** 8 But he said, 'O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?' 9 He said to him, 'Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon.' 10 He brought him all these and cut them in two, laying each half over against the other; but he did not cut the birds in two. 11 And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. 12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a deep and terrifying darkness descended upon him. 13 Then the Lord said to Abram, 'Know this for certain, that your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred years; 14 but I will bring judgement on the nation that they serve, and afterwards they shall come out with great possessions. 15 As for yourself, you shall go to your ancestors in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. Not to heaven, or to be with God, but simply buried. 16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.' 17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, a smoking fire-pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, They have never been to the border of the Euphrates, nor have they ever claimed in recent times that the area we call Iraq belonged to the Jews as they have claimed Palestine does. If the river of Egypt is the Nile,then it has never been theirs either. This has to be a major error. ***** 19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.' There are three (3) major errors in chapter 15 of Genesis. Genesis 16 The Birth of Ishmael 1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children. She had an Egyptian slave_girl whose name was Hagar, 2 and Sarai said to Abram, 'You see that the Lord has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my slave-girl; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.' And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. 3 So, after Abram had lived for ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife. Abram was seventy-five (75) years old when he left Haran at God's calling, and Sarai then has to be sixty-five for she is ten (10) years younger than Abram per chapter 17, verse 17. With Lot and his family, his herds and flocks, and "persons" he had acquired in Haran, they went to Canaan, built an altar, and pitched their tent near to Bethel. Later, they made their way "by stages" to the Negeb per chapter 12, verse 9. Taking time to move with his "possessions" and Lot's flocks and herds from Haran at the southern border of Turkey to Canaan had to take time, probably a couple of months at least. Moving as if tentatively around until he came to one side of Bethel, build that altar, and "pitched his tent" per chapter 12, verse 8, this had to mean they spent some time there before moving "by stages" toward the Negeb. How much time, we don't know, but they had to rest with flocks and herds and many men. We also know that in time, a famine came on the land which took them to Egypt. The question is, how much time had passed until they had entered Egypt, and how long did it take before Sarai was brought to Pharaoh's attention, and then for him to take her to wife; and lastly, how long was Sarai Pharaoh's "wife"? It is not unreasonable to estimate that they were a year at the least from Haran to leaving Egypt, and most likely two or more years for "famine" to come on the land since there had to be plenty for Abram to "pitch his tent near to Bethel. If so, this made Abram seventy-six, or seventy-seven years old, or older. When they did leave Egypt (with his possessions, including men, apparently), Abram was very rich with various herds, silver, and gold according to chapter 13, verses 1 through 4 and went to the Negeb, then by "stages" again, but this time to Bethel along with Lot and his herds. This all had to take another year at the least for the flocks had to graze regularly. This would make Abram at least seventy-seven or seventy-eight. Now he's lived in Canaan for ten (10) years, and is eighty-seven (87) or eighty-eight (88) years old, or possibly a little older, and has no children, and is given Hagar to bear him a child. 4 He went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, 'May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my slave-girl to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the Lord judge between you and me!' 6 But Abram said to Sarai, 'Your slave-girl is in your power; do to her as you please.' Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she ran away from her. 7 The angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. 8 And he said, 'Hagar, slave-girl of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?' She said, 'I am running away from my mistress Sarai.' 9 The angel of the Lord said to her, 'Return to your mistress, and submit to her.' 10 The angel of the Lord also said to her, 'I will so greatly multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude.' 11 And the angel of the Lord said to her, 'Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael, for the Lord has given heed to your affliction. 12 He shall be a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin.' 13 So she named the Lord who spoke to her, 'You are El-roi'; for she said, 'Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?' Fundamentalists and the Bible 02 Again we have god named El, and cited as El-roi, or God the king, or perhaps The Mighty God, as is the Canaanite god is known as. Note that there is no denial of this. Worse, in verse 7, it says that "The angel of the Lord" spoke to Hagar. Once more, we repeat, she called him "El-roi", or the god of the Canaanites, and there is no record of her being corrected. This is an error in the Bible. ***** 14 Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; it lies between Kadesh and Bered. 15 Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram named his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael. 16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael. Here we are told that after at least a year later for Ishmael to be born, that Abram is eighty-six years old. This seems as if Abram was about two years younger than possible. There is one (1) known major error in chapter 16 of Genesis. Genesis 17 The Sign of the Covenant 1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, 'I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless. At this time, if we accept that Abram was eighty-six years old as in chapter 16, verse 16 above, Ishmael is 13 years old now. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will make you exceedingly numerous.' 3 Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him, 4 'As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God.' 9 God said to Abraham, 'As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. 13 Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.' 15 God said to Abraham, 'As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.' 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, 'Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?' Okay, first in verse 1 it says that Abram is ninety-nine, and now Abraham, as he is now to be called, says he is a hundred years old. If this isn't a contradiction, I don't know what is. An error for the Bible. ***** See below for another instance that proves some of these sequences were written by men, and not God, nor inspired by any God. 18 And Abraham said to God, 'O that Ishmael might live in your sight!' 19 God said, 'No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year.' 22 And when he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham. 23 Then Abraham took his son Ishmael and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. Once again we're told Abraham is now back to being ninety-nine years old. 25 And his son Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26 That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised; 27 and all the men of his house, slaves born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him. As a point of curiosity, was it necessary for God to repeat himself? Verses 26 and 27 are a repeat of verse 23 which said the same thing. An error for the Bible written by men. ***** There are two (2) major errors in chapter 17 of Genesis. Genesis 18 A Son Promised to Abraham and Sarah 1 The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. 2 He looked up and saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent entrance to meet them, and bowed down to the ground. 3 He said, 'My lord, if I find favour with you, do not pass by your servant. 4 Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. 5 Let me bring a little bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on—since you have come to your servant.' So they said, 'Do as you have said.' 6 And Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, 'Make ready quickly three measures of choice flour, knead it, and make cakes.' 7 Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it. 8 Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate. 9 They said to him, 'Where is your wife Sarah?' And he said, 'There, in the tent.' 10 Then one said, 'I will surely return to you in due season, and your wife Sarah shall have a son.' And Sarah was listening at the tent entrance behind him. 11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, 'After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?' In the above chapter 17, verse 17, Abraham laughs when told he will have a son by Sarah, and it is recorded that he says this aloud, but no response is heard to his laughter nor his questioning. Now, in this chapter, verses 11 and 12, Sarah is said to be in menopause ("...ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women."), and then laughed when she hears that she shall have a child by Abraham. In the next few verses below, we see that Sarah, like Abraham questions it, but Abraham is asked why Sarah laughed. It is obvious that this is a repetition of chapter 17 where Abraham laughs and questions it just as Sarah does now. Why? Why repeat this, and this time have Sarah do the laughing and questioning? It seems to be pretty obvious that two different men wrote these chapters for God would not find it needful to repeat himself, nor to say the same thing in two different ways. This is a huge error in the Bible proving it was written by men, and not just one man, but men who contradicted each other. ***** 13 The Lord said to Abraham, 'Why did Sarah laugh, and say, "Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?" 14 Is anything too wonderful for the Lord? At the set time I will return to you, in due season, and Sarah shall have a son.' 15 But Sarah denied, saying, 'I did not laugh'; for she was afraid. He said, 'Oh yes, you did laugh.' Judgement Pronounced on Sodom 16 Then the men set out from there, and they looked towards Sodom; and Abraham went with them to set them on their way. 17 The Lord said, 'Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18 seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; so that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.' 20 Then the Lord said, 'How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! 21 I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.' We are told in verse 17 above that "The Lord said, '...' " In this, the same story as in chapter 17, we are told in verse 18 "And Abraham said to God," . Since these two are the same tale told in two different ways, chapter 17, verse 18 proves that chapter 18, verse17, that the "Lord" is actually supposed to be "God". Why? The answer apparently, may be that the second writer wanted to introduce Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah, thus a different rendering of the same story, but with a different ending. An obvious error in the Bible. ***** There are two (2) major errors in this half of chapter 18 of Genesis. Confession In my days of being a believer, I probably read this at various times, but always seemed to overlook the differences in chapter 17 and 18, and never questioned it. As many are now, I was then, considering the Bible the word of God, and maybe I wasn't ready to understand it, but keep the faith, and keep praying for understanding. Now I understand what the Bible often does for a fact say. They also used the well-worn trite saying of God works in mysterious ways. Well, they get even less mysterious when the blinders are off, and one begins to realize that the supposed word of God is not God's word, but the word of men—yes, men, and not just one man—as all of this, along with the two tales of Noah and the animals reveals, is not God's inerrant word, but a book of tales told by men, and most likely at different times. It's no wonder that the Bible is so hard to read for most of us, or to understand. It has to be so because we start out with the premise that this book, The Holy Bible, is God's word, so when we come across confusing and contradictory statements, we simply think that it's because of a fault in us, or that no matter how we pray, we're not ready to understand God's word. Now I understand perfectly when something is very contradictory, and when it is in error without a doubt. Summation There are twenty-one major errors from chapter 9 through half of chapter 18, and twelve (12) probable errors also. Combined with errors in the first essay, there are eighty-five (85) major errors, and twenty (20) probable errors, and that only covers seventeen and a half (17 ½)chapters of Genesis. That is huge and we haven't yet covered a half of the chapters of Genesis. Due to the length of this essay, and that the first half of chapter 18 is pretty much a repeat of chapter 17, this essay is halted there to give a place to start the next essay which will begin with the second half of chapter 18, and the tale of Lot (which the first half of chapter 18 was most likely repeated, that is, to give an introduction to Lot's supposed problem, as well as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. There could be no other reason to repeat chapter 17 as it was repeated, and in such a contradictory fashion.) Once more, it is claimed that what's in the Bible is without error, and that supposed fact is what is used by many churches to try to regulate our sexuality, and in fact, our very existence. If they had their way, we'd all live by the rules of the Old Testament, and any work done on the Sabbath would be punishable by death. That may be a bit worse than the Puritans were, but God's law is God's law (as long as it doesn't apply to them, then there is silence as we have all seen). Check out to see if any are screaming at the top of their voices about the raping of young women, or even young girls, or of pedophiles. They are not, have not, and will remain hypocrites on this. Why would God not specify lesbians, etc., as being against his word as he supposedly did just about everything else in their then world? The reason is that it is not the word of the Hebrew God, and not the word of any God, it is man's word, written by men to control the people of their community. It is because it was all written by men for their times, and not by any omniscient (all knowing) God. For whatever reason, they have homed in on homosexuality as being such a horrible thing in our day. Yet the Bible doesn't mention a woman loving another woman. However, raping children while in God's service, or hiding pedophiles does more than just harm those, it also harms all of the loved ones, the families, and yes, even friends. Why is it that they focus on homosexuality that hurts no one, but ignore the church rapes and pedophilia? It doesn't make sense, does it? Even more, many of these people are educated, and that is seen by that lawyer, Baptist minister who is also a Mississippi representative, who calls for homosexuals to be treated with as the Bible says to, namely, to kill them. Isn't that inciting to a hate crime? Doesn't that equate to intolerance that promotes hate for religious reasons alone. If religious reasons are a good enough reason to hate, isn't any reason good enough, or does religion have a lock on free hatred? I don't think so, and I bet there are a great many that don't think religion should get a free pass on hating without penalty. Think about it please, and please do verify everything I've said, and remember that it takes only one error in the Bible to prove that the Bible is not inerrant (without error) as the Fundamentalists/Evangelicals say it is. Every reader is encouraged to verify what is here written, and in fact, I do hope each and every reader does verify as to whether what is said here is true or false. There is no agenda, or hiding, or any such thing, just a wish that these preachers and politicians would realize the falsity of what they say and not try to foist their false beliefs on everyone else just because they believe that's how it should be. Then again, if you don't verify this, and would rather ignore it, will you be able to ignore all of their calls for a church run country, and have the Puritan constabulary looking into every thing to make sure you are doing as God says you should, and if not, putting you in stocks at the least, or taking your life if they so choose. That's where this type of hatred leads to—just like the Taliban. Just like the Iranians burying a woman up to her shoulders because she is accused of adultery. Thank you again for reading. This is an original essay copyright © by wistfall1. You may tell any lesbian in need of knowing the truth of the lies about this essay and where to find it for them to read, but no use in parts or snippets to discredit this work unless you have written permission from the author, wistfall1.