INDEX

The Campaign to Impeach George W. Bush
Click here for more information





Unreliable Biblical history

Historical contradictions in the Bible


      Biblical manuscripts are notoriously unreliable when it comes to historical fact, and these disagreements and contradictions appear not only between various works, but, in an even more bizarre fashion within individual books. Saul reigned over Israel for two years, according to 1 Samuel 13:1. This figure seems improbably low so the two in the Hebrew text is usually changed to read 'twenty - two' in translation. However Saul reigned for forty years, if you believe what is written in the book of Acts 13:21. The Book of Samuel places Rachel's tomb in Benjamin at Zelzah in the north (1 Samuel 10:2) , as does Jeremiah 31:15. Genesis 35:19 and Matthew 2:16 place the tomb in Bethlehem, further south. Three sons were born to Absalom, we are told in 2 Samuel 14:27. However, a few chapters ahead Absalom said, 'I have no sons to carry on my name.' (2 Samuel 18:18) In a similar passage, we are informed that to her dying day, Michal, daughter of Saul was childless, for she mocked David for dancing in his underwear. (2 Samuel 6:23) However a few chapters later we are introduced to ‘the five sons of Michal.' (2 Samuel 21:8) Translators have usually changed the word 'Michal' in the Hebrew text to read 'Merob' in order to help clear this matter up.

      Saul committed suicide in the 31st chapter of 1 Samuel. Saul's armor bearer refused to run him through with the sword, so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. Then his armor bearer fell on his own sword and died with him (1 Samuel 31:4). In the first chapter of 2nd Samuel Saul fell on his sword but he did not die. In this version a young Amalekite put him out of his misery by striking a death blow.

      We are informed that Ishosheth the Hachomite was chief of the three of David's great heroes. (2 Samuel 23:8) The Chronicler disagrees stating that it was Jashobeam the Hachomite who was the chief of the three of David's great heroes. (1 Chronicles 11:11) The 23rd chapter of 2nd Samuel then goes on to list the thirty great heroes of David, and this passage is the subject of much confusion. There are more than thirty. Thus a correction is inserted, "there were thirty - seven in all" (2 Samuel 23:38) but the actual number of names mentioned is thirty - six.

      'Chemosh' was not the god of the Ammonites as stated in Judges 11:24. Chemosh was the god of the Moabites. (Numbers 21:29, 1 Kings 11:7, 2 Kings 23:13) A contradictory theological reference to Chemosh is found in 1 Kings 3:27. It was standard theology to state there is one God, but in this passage Chemosh is also a god. The King of Moab offered a child as a whole offerings sacrifice to Chemosh, and the god responded by 'stirring up his wrath against Israel so they gave up the battle.' The Moabites are also painted in different colors, depending on the source. David (who was the grandson of a Moabite) had very friendly relations with the Moabites and even sent his father and mother to live with the King of Moab. (2 Samuel 22:3) According to Deuteronomy, David should never have been allowed into the assembly of Israel, much less reign as king, since no Moabite must ever be accepted forever. (Deuteronomy 23:3) David was in even more hot water, for the laws stated that no one who was a product of a mixed marriage with a non_Israelite could ever be accepted. (Exodus 34:11-16, Deuteronomy 7:1-5) You can compare the acceptance of Ruth , David's grandmother, and a Moabite, and the acceptance of David, a Moabite, as King, with the furious raging against mixed marriages in Ezra and Nehemiah. For reasons of political propaganda it would seem that an alternate tradition was invented to show that David really hated Moabites. David conquered Moab and then did some ethnic cleansing, forcing the Moabites to lie on the ground to be measured off for slaughter. (2 Samuel 8:2)

      While Ezra and Nehemiah share in common a loathing for foreigners, the two books come from two different sources. Compare Ezra 2:1-64 and Nehemiah 7:7-66. The differences in these genealogical lists suggest conflicting source materials, although we are given to believe that they describe the same time period and events. Ezra 2:64 gives the total of the list as '42,360' but the actual total is 29,818. The total in Nehemiah comes closer to that of Ezra with different details (31,089). Compare amount of gold and garments in Ezra 2:69 and Nehemiah 7:70. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were not written by these men. Nehemiah lists the descendants of Joshua the High Priest down to six generations, suggesting that the manuscript was composed close to the time of Alexander the Great.

      We are told that Ishbosheth was 40 years old when he reigned over Israel and he reigned two years. (2 Samuel 2:10) This could not be the case for he did not fight at Gilboa because he was to young. David ordered that those who stayed with the baggage were to receive an equal share of the spoils of war with those who went out to battle, and from that time onward he made it a law over Israel as it remained up to the writers time. (1 Samuel 30:25) David was not yet King over Judah, not to mention Israel, and in no position to make a law over Israel. As well, the phrase "as it is to this day" shows that the manuscript was compiled at a later date from earlier (and, as we are seeing, conflicting) source materials.

      Now in the law it states that the Israelites must not despise an Edomite, for they were blood brothers. (Deuteronomy 23:7) It would seem that David was a law breaker. David made a great name for himself by the slaughter of eighteen thousand Edomites in the valley of Salt and he stationed garrisons throughout Edom. (2 Samuel 8:13) Or, then again, it was Abishai son of Zeruiah who killed those eighteen thousand Edomites in the valley of Salt; and he stationed garrisons throughout Edom. (1 Chronicles 18:13) However, before we condemn David as a law breaker, we should keep in mind that the Levitical law was unknown in David's day, and unknown in the day of whoever wrote the Samuel accounts, but it was known to the chronicler, since Chronicles is a late work. We are told that David's sons were priests. (2 Samuel 8:18) This indicates that the Levitical laws were unknown in their present form at that time, for David was from the tribe of Judah and the Levitical regulations only allowed levites from the tribe of Levi to serve as priests, and anyone else who approached would be put to death. Thus, the chronicler edits this reference to David (1 Chronicles 18:17) by stating that David's sons were ‘high officials in service to the king' (rather than priests, which, along with David's massacres of Edomites, would have placed David in serious violation of the law code - it was Abishai).


The Campaign to Impeach George W. Bush
Click here for more information



For summary of what I believe and why I believe it, visit my Site Summary page...

RELATED ESSAYS

The Bible as history. Political polemic and allegory in the Bible.

The history of King Joram. Theological polemic as history

Samuel, David, and Goliath. Contradictory sources in the history books

Contradictory history in the book of Joshua

Genocide and resurrection in the Bible.

The conflicting history of Chronicles and Kings

Historical contradictions in the story of Balaam


PREVIOUS PAGE - Genocide and Resurrection in the Bible

INDEX... (text)       HOME

NEXT PAGE - The conflicting history of Kings and Chronicles

EMAIL





A Unified Field Theory

failed_gravity_theory.gif - 10361 Bytes



The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file ->
unified.zip

Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.







Principles of Evolution: A Study in the Evolution of Bedbugs



A couple of years ago my bedroom was invaded by bedbugs. There were two variant genetic lines. One type of bedbug was an enlongated, thin, tubular insect, and the second genetic line was a flat, perfectly circular insect. The result of the cross breeding of these two genetically distinct variants was the production of a bedbug with charcteristics of both, an enlongated, flat bedbug with a central bulge (such that the shape of the bedbug was somewhere between 'long' and 'circular'). The long skinny bedbugs were such strange and unfamiliar looking insects that at first I did not recognize them as being bedbugs, and considered them to be a seperate species of insect. However, as the photographs of bedbugs above indicate, enlongated and skinny bedbugs are not uncommon, and the photographs also show the variants that are produced by genetic combinations that result in an insect somewhere in between 'circular' and 'enlongated'.

Therefore it is my hypothesis that evolution occurs by means of the transfer of dominate genes, with the production of such dominant genes being the product of 'biological algorithms', a genetic software program that brings physical characteristics into harmony with behavior, such that when behavior changes, and a conflict then exists, this acts as a trigger and causes the release of dominant genes. The result is rapid evolution of species. The bedbug is a relatively new insect, not the product of millions of years of evolution but rather an insect that is evolving in real time. The newly emerging dominant form of the insect is the flat, round ciruclar insect, well adapted to living in human bedrooms (it is flat, rather than tubular, thus allowing it to hide in the smallest cracks, living a stealthy lifestyle, and it is round, which gives the insect a maximum storage capacity such that it must endanger itself only a few times a month by emerging to feed.

Other examples of rapid evolution include the development of long legs in an invasive species of toad in Australia. As the toads move into the mountainous regions of Australia, and their behvaior changes, making them 'climbing toads', over the course of just a couple of decades the toads in the highlands have grown long legs specially adapted to climbing. It is worth noting here that the toads are poisonous, and are a successful invasive species because they have no natural predators in Australia, and so it would not be the case that the toads with long legs were 'the fittest survivors', because all the toads are survivors, and therefore predation does not explain the rapid emergence and spread of such well adapted, long legged toads. Once again we see evidence for the existence of biological algorithms and the rapid spread of dominant genes through a population, which once introduced proceed to overwhelm the older genes which are being replaced (making toad long legged and a bed bug round and flat).


A Theological Experiment

My interest in pursuing the Unified Field Theory is spurred on by my need to discover the theoretical explanation of a new form of propulsion (as explained on this page: Why the Unified Field Theory?). The experiment involving the bedbugs came out of nowhere.

I also believe that it is possible to justify theological propositions using experimental methods. If a thing is an objective truth then it can be verified and proven true by means of experimentation. Such a theological proposition is of more value than a ‘divine revelation’, since such revelations depend upon nothing more than establishing authority figures which requires the creation of artificial hierarchies, for the only reason why I might be encouraged to believe an authority figure who orders me to believe unsubstantiated opinions is if I could somehow be convinced that this authority possessed a mind that was somehow superior to mine, and thus was fit to express opinions as though opinions were unquestionable facts and thus worthy of being elevated to the status of absolute dogma.

There is a self evident human inequality which is visibly apparent. Some people are ‘beautiful’ and thus are the true elite on this planet, and some people are not. It is this sexual inequality and the degeneration that follows upon beauty that is the true driving force behind all the evil that happens on earth. The need for ruthless oppression and the pursuit of wealth and the consequent creation of suffering and poverty which must follow upon this practice is for the purpose of creating an artificial alpha elite.

The true elites are the young and the beautiful. The artificial elite are the rich and the wealthy. The elite aging rich artificial alpha male has no good looks, for he is physically degenerate, but he will be found escorting beauty because he has a beautiful wallet. If he loses his wallet he will be found at home with all the other unattractive aged beta males sitting in a rocking chair watching reruns of Bonanza. No money, no sex. It is for this reason that the alpha males are found to be so ruthless and so violent in pursuit of their goal. The alpha male has fallen. The beta male has arisen and now the whole planet is full of ruinous destruction for it.

We see in religion a confused and contradictory reaction to this reality. On the one hand religion preaches a sexless heaven where castration and the clitorectomy create ‘pure spirits’. Muslims throw women under sacks. On the other hand religion supports hierarchy and is the prop of the elite alpha male. It is for this reason that religion is incoherent when it comes to speaking about sex.

Now we see this same principle at work in all of nature. Guppies dance and show off their colorful tails and the guppy who dances with the most colorful tail is the sexually successful guppy. Therefore it is the doctrine of the ruthless oppressor which teaches that the solution to human sexual violence is to be found in castration and the creation of pure ghosts. This would be equivalent to damning an aardvark for having the ‘sinful aardvark nature’ or prosecuting an anteater for the high crime of ‘ant genocide’.

Therefore it was my theological hypothesis that the correct solution to this problem is to give every guppy a beautiful colorful tail. I compare this solution to the classic religious solution which is to cut off every tail since having a tail is ‘sinful’. If having a tail is sinful then God must be sinful for no human being has any choice in deciding whether or not they would be born with a colorful tail, or whether they would not.

When I was young I was a beautiful guppy with a lovely tail. So everyone seemed to think. I am older now. My nose became very badly sunburned and destroyed. It seemed good to me to test my hypothesis by using these ‘biological algorithms’ to correct this problem. I healed half my nose as you can see by the line separating the still very dark patch on the side in the photograph below.





I documented my experiment on these pages. one two t hree four fi ve six


I have confirmed to my own satisfaction that my theological proposition is correct and that religious dogma is erroneous, being based as it was upon nothing more than ‘divine revelation’ which is just a form of opinionated speculation. For the time being I am not continuing this experiment, for I must wait until the weather on this planet improves, and the dark clouds of ruthless oppression break letting a little sun shine come through so that I can show the world the truth about God, by showing people how God goes about giving an old guppy back his beautiful colorful tail.


Until then I will have to sit on the sidelines, while all my scientific breakthroughs are deliberately ignored, while I wonder to myself what ever in the world could be wrong with the human race, because what this all will prove at the end of it all is that there definitely was something wrong with the people on this planet.