Bible Cannot be Reconciled with Science, and Must be Rejected

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg (starletters@inl.co.za) Tue 22/01/2013 21:14.   

Sir

Bishop Moagi Khunou’s letter “Much agreement between Bible and true science” (The Star, January 21, copy below) is a classic piece on how religion deals with pesky facts.

First, if you don’t have a good response, denigrate your opponent’s views as “hackneyed and discredited” without refuting them.

Then, profess Special Knowledge.  Your opponent is deluded, as indeed are many Christians, but you know better.

In fact, denigrate anyone likely to disagree: They are “casual or simplistic minds”, not “serious students”.

Knock down some straw men and deliberate misunderstandings of your opponent’s position, throw in a few apparent “facts”, a casual lie like a deathbed conversion of Darwin, skirt around anything difficult, and you’re done –what could be easier?

Only a believer is qualified to criticise the Bible?  Hardly. Reading the Bible with an open mind is one of the surest routes to atheism

Let us confront what the Bishop avoided:

I was refuting Mr Lee’s claim that the Bible is “the infallible and inerrant Word of God”.  I showed that it is not inerrant (error-free) as it has serious mistakes, and not infallible (incapable of error) as it has been modified over time.  I said nothing about whether God personally wrote the Bible, one of the Bishop’s straw men.

There are plenty of professing Christians who believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, including about 30% of US citizens: They are called “Young-Earth Creationists”.  However the Bishop is welcome to believe that a Divine Space Opera took place between the first two verses of Genesis.

Let’s also ignore that in Genesis 1, God creates plants first and man last, after all other animals, but in Genesis 2 He creates man first.

What we can’t ignore is that in Genesis 1, God creates day and night on the first “day”, and then it was evening and morning (a literal day –not an “age”). Plants are created on the third day, and the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.  Thus we have day and night proceeding before the creation of the sun.  The earth is supposedly older (much older, the Bishop claims) than the sun, which is itself two days older than Adam.  Please try to reconcile this with science!

The Bishop claims that there is agreement between the Bible and “true science”.  “True science” is a tautology: If it’s not true, it’s not science.  No doubt the Bishop only regards as true the parts of science that don’t contradict his myths.

There is a big difference between a Bible written by fallible men, and science done by fallible men.  Science is self-correcting.  Experimental results –facts– are checked against the proposed model.  There is stringent peer review.  Scientists compete for the best explanation that fits reality.  Hypotheses that do not work are discarded.

Religious books, on the other hand, are not rewritten when they prove inaccurate.  The believer is not encouraged to check that his beliefs match reality.  Instead he is called upon to believe ever-more absurd things in order to demonstrate his “faith”.

For example… If all the eight-million-odd species on earth were on Noah’s Ark and got off on Mt Ararat, isn't it strange that we find marsupials only in Australia?  The Bishop seems to believe that they ran and swam (or built boats?) all the way there without any being left behind!  Continental Drift, coupled with evolution, is a much sounder explanation.

Note how the Bishop skirts the genealogy of Jesus.  “The Saviour had to be born in the house of David” –what nonsense is this?  Does the Bishop know how babies are made?  Matthew 1-16 deals only with the male line: Either Joseph is Jesus’s genetic father, in which case Jesus is the “son” of David, the “son” of Abraham –but not the Son of God– or, if God inseminated Mary, then Jesus can be claimed as the “Son of God” but he has no family tree, and the “prophecies” are false.

Of course the Bishop has no answer to the 500-year difference between the conflicting so-called genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.  If God “inspired” Matthew and Luke, he “inspired” at least one of them to lie.

We can find biblical phrases that can be shoe-horned into agreeing with modern science after the fact.  Nevertheless, the Bible has been used, and continues to be used, to suppress science and human rights.  One thinks of church persecution of Galileo and Copernicus, the “Creationism” rampant in the US, and persecution of gays in Africa.

According to Wikipedia on “Deathbed Conversion”, Charles Darwin did not “surrender to the wisdom of God in the end”.  Deathbed conversion stories should be taken with a pinch of salt.  It is claimed that Christopher Hitchens too had a deathbed conversion: He called for a priest, and converted him to Atheism.

The Second Coming of John Lee

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg (starletters@inl.co.za) Mon 07/01/2013 09:32.  Published minus the parts in blue [plus parts in red] Monday 14 January 2012 as “Bible is contradictory, a product of fallible men”.

I refer to John Lee’s letter “Nobody will determine end of days, only God” (The Star, Monday January 7 2013).

Mr Lee needs to check his assumptions.  The Bible is not “the infallible and inerrant Word of God”, as he believes, and one can prove this easily.

First proof - objective reality: The two creation myths in the Bible are both wrong. They can in no way be reconciled with the true age of the earth as corroborated by many scientific methods.  The tale of Noah’s ark begs the question: How did all the kangaroos get to Australia and the llamas to Peru?

Second Proof - logic: A document that contradicts itself cannot be true.  The self-contradictions in the Bible are many and well-documented.  Among the more glaring ones are [Such as] the two conflicting genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.  From Abraham to David the records agree.  From David to Joseph there are serious discrepancies.  Luke has 40 generations between the two; Matthew has 25, a difference of about 480 years.*

Matthew 1 starts “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham”.  When he gets to Jesus in verse 16, he contradicts himself, saying “…Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus”.  The original writer of the book of Matthew probably had Joseph as the father of Jesus.  A later writer then grafted in the “Son of God” myth, apparently not realizing that if God was the father of Jesus, then Mary’s cuckolded husband Joseph and his entire descent were irrelevant.

Third proof – the Bible has changed: Since Mr Lee has internet access, he should look up the book “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” by Bart D. Ehrman, and the web site www.codexsinaiticus.org which deals with Codex Sinaiticus, the "Sinai Bible".  The latter is over 1600 years old and includes the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. It differs substantially from modern Bibles, and from slightly younger versions like Codex Vaticanus and Alexandrinus.  There are literally thousands of differences, many minor, some major, between these early versions of the Bible and the one Mr Lee reads.  How can something that appears in so many different versions be infallible or inerrant, let alone the “Word of God”?

The Bible is, simply, [It is] the work of fallible men who knew very little about the universe and explained it as best they could to try to control their followers.  We know better now.  Second Comings, Revelations, Heaven and Hell are just lies to scare the faithful.

*Footnote: I have set up a spreadsheet comparing the Old testament, Matthew 1, and Luke 3's genealogies of Jesus.  e-mail me if you'd like a copy.

---

Mr Lee's Letter:

Contradictions in Jesus's "Genealogy" show the Bible is False

Sent to The Star, Johannesburg, Tue 05/10/2010 22:38

Sir

This letter is addressed to those who still believe that the Bible is the infallible, divinely-inspired Truth.

Please read Matthew 1.  It starts with what the author claims is "the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham".  He traces the male descent from Abraham to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus".

Now see Luke 3:23-38, which traces the male line in reverse from Joseph back to Adam.

Luke and Matthew use opposite directions so they are difficult to compare, but if you sort their lists (or ask me for the Jesus spreadsheet) and then try to align them, some glaring differences emerge:

From Abraham to David the records agree.  From David to Joseph there are serious discrepancies.  Luke has 40 generations between the two; Matthew has 25, a difference of about 480 years.  Of the names between David and Joseph, only two match exactly, and two approximately.

You don't have to be a judge or a policeman to know that, if two people give you seriously conflicting accounts, one of them is wrong.  Or both.

So, if God inspired Luke and Matthew to write these lists, He's a liar.  Or maybe they weren't that inspired.

Worse is to come.

Remember, Matthew proclaimed "the genealogy of Jesus Christ", supposedly showing his descent from David, in fulfilment of prophecy.  But wait a minute: Isn't the Christian myth that God made Mary pregnant with Jesus?  Well, yes, Matthew later admits that Joseph was only the husband of Mary, not father of Jesus but just the cuckold who was conned into raising another's child.

With no genetic link between Joseph and Jesus, both genealogies are pointless.  Why have them at all?  To mislead the gullible?

Perhaps the original versions did have Joseph as Jesus' dad.  Then later editors grafted the "son of god" story in from older legends, but could not deal with the obvious contradiction.

Too bad that, to them, Mary was only a woman and not worthy of her own genealogy –even if she was left as the only link between Jesus and the human race!

Is this part of the Bible true?  Logically it can't be.

Can the Bible then be the Word of God?  Only if He is very confused...

_______________________________________________________________________

Spreadsheet (contact me for a copy on Excel):

The Table below compares the Genealogy according to Luke 3, Matthew 1, and Genesis 5 &11.  The column headed "Match" indicates whether the names match (most don't). The last two columns estimate the number of years from Adam to Jesus according to Like and Matthew, giving a difference of 15 generations and around 500 years!

By Luke 3:23-38				by Matthew 1				by Genesis 5 & 11			Age at
Verse	Gen	Name	Generations		Name	Match?	No.	Verse	Name		birth of son
38.3		God.
38.2	1	Adam				Yes	1	5.1	Adam		130	130
38.1	2	Seth				Yes	2	5.3	Seth		105	105
38	3	Enos				Yes	3	5.6	Enos		90	90
37.4	4	Cainan				Yes	4	5.9	Cainan		70	70
37.3	5	Maleleel				Approx	5	5.12	Mahalaleel		65	65
37.2	6	Jared				Yes	6	5.15	Jared		162	162
37.1	7	Enoch				Yes	7	5.18	Enoch		65	65
37	8	Mathusala				Approx	8	5.21	Methuselah		187	187
36.4	9	Lamech				Yes	9	5.25	Lamech		182	182
36.3	10	Noe				Approx	10	5.29	Noah		500	500
36.2	11	Sem				Approx	11	5.32	Shem (& Ham, and Japheth)		100	100
36.1	12	Arphaxad				Yes	12	11.10	Arphaxad		35	35
36	13	Cainan			Genesis 9:18   ...and Ham is the father of Canaan.
35.4	14	Sala				Approx	13	11.12	Salah		30	30
35.3	15	Heber				Approx	14	11.14	Eber		34	34
35.2	16	Phalec				Approx	15	11.16	Peleg		30	30
35.1	17	Ragau				NO	16	11.18	Reu		32	32
35	18	Saruch				Approx	17	11.20	Serug		30	30
34.4	19	Nachor				Approx	18	11.22	Nahor		29	29
34.3	20	Thara				Approx	19	11.24	Terah		70	70
34.2	21	Abraham			Abraham	Yes	20	11.26	Abram	$	100	100
34.1	22	Isaac			Isaac	Yes			Isaac	#	60	60
34	23	Jacob			Jacob	Yes			Jacob	@	30	30
33.4	24	Juda			Judas	Approx			Judah		30	30
33.3	25	Phares			Phares	Yes					30	30
33.2	26	Esrom			Esrom	Yes	$ -Genesis 21:5				30	30
33.1	27	Aram			Aram	Yes	# - Genesis 26:26				30	30
33	28	Aminadab			Aminadab	Yes	@ - Ages from here				30	30
32.4	29	Naasson			Naasson	Yes	on are estimates.				30	30
32.3	30	Salmon			Salmon	Yes					30	30
32.2	31	Booz			Booz of Rachab	Yes					30	30
32.1	32	Obed			Obed of Ruth	Yes					30	30
32	33	Jesse			Jesse	Yes					30	30
31.4	34	David	1	1	David	Yes					30	30
31.3	35	Nathan	2	2	Solomon	NO					30	30
31.2	36	Mattatha	3	3	Roboam	NO					30	30
31.1	37	Menan	4	4	Abia	NO					30	30
31	38	Melea	5	5	Asa	NO					30	30
30.4	39	Eliakim	6	6	Josaphat	NO					30	30
30.3	40	Jonan	7	7	Joram	NO					30	30
30.2	41	Joseph	8	8	Ozias	NO					30	30
30.1	42	Juda	9	9	Joatham	NO					30	30
30	43	Simeon	10	10	Achaz	NO					30	30
29.4	44	Levi	11	11	Ezekias	NO					30	30
29.3	45	Matthat	12	12	Manasses	NO					30	30
29.2	46	Jorim	13	13	Amon	NO					30	30
29.1	47	Eliezer	14			NO					30
29	48	Jose	15	14	Josias	Approx					30	30
28.4	49	Er	16	15	Jechonias	NO					30
28.3	50	Elmodam	17		(in Babylon)	NO					30
28.2	51	Cosam	18			NO					30
28.1	52	Addi	19			NO					30
28	53	Melchi	20			NO					30
27.4	54	Neri	21			NO					30
27.3	55	Salathiel	22	16	Salathiel	Yes					30	30
27.2	56	Zorobabel	23	17	Zorobabel	Yes					30	30
27.1	57	Rhesa	24	18	Abiud	NO					30	30
27	58	Joanna	25	19	Eliakim	NO					30	30
26.4	59	Juda	26	20	Azor	NO					30	30
26.3	60	Joseph	27	21	Sadoc	NO					30	30
26.2	61	Semei	28	22	Achim	NO					30	30
26.1	62	Mattathias	29	23	Eliud	NO					30	30
26	63	Maath	30	24	Eleazar	NO					30	30
25.4	64	Nagge	31			NO					30
25.3	65	Esli	32			NO					30
25.2	66	Naum	33			NO					30
25.1	67	Amos	34			NO					30
25	68	Mattathias	35			NO					30
24.4	69	Joseph	36			NO					30
24.3	70	Janna	37			NO					30
24.2	71	Melchi	38			NO					30
24.1	72	Levi	39			NO					30
24	73	Matthat	40	25	Matthan	Approx					30	30
23.2	74	Heli	41	26	Jacob	NO					30	30
23.1	75	Joseph	42	27	Joseph	Yes					30	30
23	76	Jesus	43	28	Jesus*		Number of years (Luke vs Matthew)				3696	3216
Difference:				15	generations						480	yrs

*Matt 1:16 "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus".  No genealogy is given for Mary. So descent of Jesus is not known, only his "step-father". 

Debate around Religion: The Bible is Fiction.

Sent to "The Star, Johannesburg" on Sat 02/10/2010 22:14, Published Tue Oct 5 2010, except for the sentence in blue.

We have a nice crop of responses to my letter of Sept 27 2010 criticising the Bible.  How sad that the critics appear not to have read the "Good Book" itself!

Jaco Bruwer (Sept 29, "There's no reason to trash biblical explanation") and Niki Christie (Sept 30, "Being sure of what we hope for") imply that the "days" referred to in the Creation Myth are not 24-hour days but "ages".

Please read Genesis 1:  It says the world was created in literal, 24-hour days, made clear by repeating "and there was evening, and there was morning" for each day.  Why evening first?  Because in those days (and still in Jewish tradition), the day was taken to start at sunset.

Daniel Spangenberg (Sept 29, "Confusing personal view with fact") can observe for himself that the earth did NOT arise in 144 hours by looking at geological processes, the speed of formation of elements in stars, and other natural phenomena.  These have convinced scientists that the six-day creation story is just a myth.  This is scientific fact, not just my opinion.

Jaco Bruwer agrees, saying "the earth's atmosphere cleaned up over millions of years".

Niki Christie says that it all has to start somewhere.

In a paragraph edited out of my original letter, I pre-empted this by saying: "If some god were the creator, who created the god?  If that god was always there, why not cut out the middleman and accept that the universe itself was always there?  The simpler explanation is the most likely, by Occam's Razor."

If Niki Christie would like examples of contradictions in the Bible, she should compare the two creation sequences in Genesis 1 and 2, and the differing stories in Matthew and Luke about the birth of Jesus and particularly their radically conflicting genealogies of Jesus.  I can expand on this in a later letter.

My point is that the Bible is not true.  Hence it is not possible that it is the work of a truthful divine creator.

Conclusion: The Bible is fiction steeped in the mythology of its time.  It is no more reliable a handbook –on god or anything else– than Grimm's Fairy Tales.

"Bible-based" Religion is Founded on Lies

Sent to "The Star", Johannesburg, on Mon 21/06/2010 21:54; never published.

Bob Holcombe (The Star Letters, June 17 2010) concludes that "Each responsible individual must avoid false religion and heed the consequences of not living a Bible-orientated life".

This is a contradiction in terms.  The Bible itself includes serious falsehoods.

 
Allow me to prove it:

If an authority makes two conflicting statements then, logically, at least one of them must be false.

Let me take two glaring examples from the Bible.

Firstly, the tales of Creation.

Genesis 1 says the "beasts of the earth" were created, then male and female humans. Genesis 2 contradicts this, saying that a man was created, then (in a quest for a "help meet for him") all the beasts of the earth arose (which Adam named all in one day!), and finally, woman.

Genesis 1 says the world was created in six days. "Day" and "night" were created on day one, and the sun, moon and stars on day 4.  Everyone knows that "day", "night", "evening" and "morning" are nonsense without the Sun.

Secondly, the genealogy of Jesus.

Matthew 1 claims Jesus as "the son of David, the son of Abraham".  He traces the male line from Abraham through David to "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus".  He gives 27 generations inclusive from David to Joseph.

Luke 3:23-38 gives the male line going back from Joseph to David to Abraham to Adam.  Alas!  He fits in 42 generations from David to Joseph!  Except for David and Joseph, only four of the names he cites are similar to Matthew's list.

How could they diverge so radically if the Bible is divinely inspired truth?

Luke's list from Adam to Abraham disagrees in places with Genesis 5 and 11. Not only was Luke NOT divinely inspired, he didn't even read his Old Testament...

It gets worse:–

Matthew and Luke list the male line to give the impression that Jesus was descended from David, in fulfilment of prophecy.  But, oops, it's also claimed that Jesus was not the son of Mary's husband, but of God himself, who cuckolded poor Joseph!  They can't both be true.

Did God fib to Moses, Matthew, or Luke, or all of them?

As anyone with a Bible and an open mind can see, the Bible contains lies.

 
The Bible is grand literature and majestic mythology, but its morality is debatable, its history is inaccurate, its science is wrong, and on the subject of gods and an afterlife, it is pure fiction.