Bible’s Anachronisms Prove It False

The bible is viewed by believers as perfect, inspired in it’s original by God, free from error, etc. etc. etc.  ad infinitum, ad nauseam. If it could be demonstrated that there is one incorrect  assertion in the Bible, then the aforementioned attributes of the Bible cannot be viewed as having any truth to them whatsoever.

If just one indispensable Christian doctrine is demonstrably invalid, then the whole edifice of Christian thought is without foundation and is likewise invalid.

There are still many differing opinions regarding the origin of the Bible, when it was written, and under what conditions; but it is fair to say that, outside fundamentalist circles, modern consensus suggests that the assembling and editing of the documents that were to constitute the Bible began in the seventh century BCE, some three centuries after David’s time. (The earliest actual material in our possession, part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dates to the second century BCE at the earliest).

In particular, the account of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century bce were destroyed long before he came on the scene. Some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years.

The Truth Is

There are hundreds of  errors of fact,  impossible situations, contratictions and anachronisms in the Bible. This section of The Church of Truth’s doctrine will focus on the many anachronisms found in the Bible.

Genesis Proven to be written AFTER the time of Moses, the alleged author.

Here is what the perfect Bible says of the place of origin of Abrahm  that is, Abraham:

Tereh took Abrahm his son and Lot, the son of Haran, his grandson and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abrahm’s wife, and he went forth from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran they settled there. Gen. 11:31

While this text purports to be from the hand of Moses, written sometime between 1400 and 1200 BCE, the Chaldeans did not occupy Ur until ca. 800 BCE. Hence, this document’s reference to Ur as “Ur of the Chaldeans” dates it as having been written after that time.

Camels are referenced BEFORE they were domesticated.

And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master (Abraham), and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. Genesis 24:10

It is the consensus of scholars that camels were domesticated after the time of Abraham and thus we have another case where the “perfect” bible is wrong.

Additional proof of this has been found. See Finding Israel’s first camels: Archaeologists pinpoint the date when domesticated camels arrived in Israel

Jericho Was In Ruins BEFORE Joshua Allegedly Concurred It.

The account of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century bce were destroyed long before he came on the scene. Some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years.

13 comments on “Bible’s Anachronisms Prove It False

  1. Greg says:

    The Hebrew Bible doesn’t say “Chaldeans”, that is just a problem of the English translations. The Hebrew word is Kasdiy (Kasdite or Kassite).

  2. taskeinc says:

    As stated in the documentary Zeitheist, “Christianity [and the Bible/Quran], along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It serves to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that God controls everything, and in turn, awful crimes can be justified in the name of divine pursuit. Most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.”

    Christians, Muslims, biblical and quranic apologist, are so arrogantly misguided, they have the audacity to get upset when Christianity and Islam are linked together. Do the research and you’ll see that both spawned from Judaism and are birds of the same sinister feather.

    We abandoned ridiculous beliefs about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. The reason why the plagiarized (lifted directly from Egyptian mythology) apocryphal Jesus story was not abandoned is because it ties in to the psychotic, absurd notion that “if you don’t recognize Jesus – the protagonist of a Roman story mind you – you will transition to a nonsensical place called Hell.”

    Really people? Seriously? And as an African-American, I’m downright embarrassed by the evangelical shenanigans of my genealogical brothers and sisters when you consider the fact that Christianity, Jesus, and the ‘holy book’ were all force-fed and beaten into our ancestors. Black Christians should be ashamed of themselves!

    If at our core, we are pure energy – can never be destroyed, moves into form (birth), through form (life), and out of form (death), and the cycle repeats itself – this means no pain, no death. This deductive concept has nothing to do with outlandish beliefs and everything to do with the cycles of water, carbon and nitrogen.

    The millions of people who have experienced NDEs, regardless of their religious postulates, or lack thereof, have stated, “they feel more alive when temporarily unattached to their body and their is no pain.” The pain returns when their energy returns to the body.

    Non-believers, free thinkers, and logical human beings, who are not mentally hamstrung by blind faith, any debate with brainwashed fundamentalist is a complete waste of time and energy. Your efforts to reach these folks is an exercise in futility because the plethora of benighted believers will cling to their archaic, primitive, backwards canonical concepts until the day they transition from this earth.

    Article: Nonsensical, by taskeinc

  3. Mitchell Golden says:

    Such claims are no better than the fundamentalists, yet my comment will probably be ignored despite your alleged interest in truth. For starters, the text of Genesis does not make any authorship claims. Later traditions developed associating Moses with the books of the Pentateuch but to say that the text “purports” mosaic authorship is blatantly false. Do not equate modern interpretation of text with the texts themselves. Second, generalizing “believers” as people who believe every fact of the bible to be infallible and historically accurate shows great ignorance and prejudice. Many of the scholars whose work you are referencing are in fact believers who also believe that the bible is not directly handed down from the mouth of God. Third, while the texts are likely redacted and compiled after the time of David, you would be hard pressed to find scholars that believe that the compiled material do not contain much older source material. The Hebrew in some poetry can be dated to even the 10th century BCE and the cult of Yahweh is clearly older than that.

    Do not gallantly parade around with your imitation and quite amateur scholarship as if you fight for truth. You do not fight for truth as you skew data that you don’t even understand and only argue subjectively. Leave scholarship and “truth” to those who are truly objective.

    I would not be surprised if my comment is deleted in order to be “silenced,” but that doesn’t matter. These ancient texts don’t need defending. They have been studied long before us and will continue to be studied long after we are gone.

    • Nope – I am not going to ignore your comment and I would never delete it to “silence” you. I just saw it. I infrequently check the comments.

      This page was originally written over three years ago. I make no claim to “scholarship” (in spite of my PH. D. in Operations Research) for things on this website. It is a repository for my thoughts about religion, Jewish and Christian, in particular.

      You are tilting at windmills with your criticism of this page; it (this page) is not one I wish to spend time defending. It doesn’t appear as one of my main pages accessible from the home page. How did you even find it?

      If you respond to this comment, I will delete the page. I have no emotional attachment to its contents. My other pages prove my point much better. I just don’t want to delete it and have you think I did so to “silence” you.

      • Phil says:

        “I would never “delete” it to silence you”

        “If you respond to this comment I will delete the page”

        You halfwit coward.

  4. republibot3 says:

    Your concept of “if any of it is wrong, all of it is wrong,” is really only an issue for literalists, people who take every word literally true. The majority of Christian denominations – including all the big ones – do not do this. The majority of Christians don’t take every word literally, which, in fact, it would be hard for anyone to do anyway as the Bible frequently admits it is speaking in metaphores. So while your argument is logical, it only applies to a comparatively small minority of Christians, almost all of whom are in the US

    • If the Bible is the Word of God, then why is it wrong to believe that if one word is wrong, it must be all wrong. The almighty, omniscient, omnipotent God couldn’t/wouldn’t possibly tell a lie would he? Why would He want to mislead those who he loves?

      Everyone takes the parts of the bible that they believe literally. To not take Genesis literally is to lose foundation elements of Christianity. You lose creation (all right – few believe in a 6 day creation), Noah’s Ark, Jews in Egypt, 10 plagues, Exodus, 10 Commandments, the tower of Babel, Abraham, Jacob, Sodom and Gomorrah. All of these things were referenced by Jesus. He believed every jot and tittle of the Old Testament.

      Very few Christians will renounce the 10 commandments even though the don’t believe the 6 day creation story.

      Most of all, you lose the whole reason for Jesus – to free us from our sin. What sin? Why the sin of Adam and Eve. Without that bullshit, there is no reason for Jesus.

      So, people cherry pick which nonsensical bible stories they believe, they don’t take every one of them literally, but they take literally, those stories that support their belief.

      Are Christians and Jews not taught that the Bible is the Word Of God?And, since the Bible is the “word of God”, edited and supervised by the Editor In Chief, the Holy Spirit, shouldn’t every word of it be taken literally? Why not?

      re: metaphors…
      No where in any of the Pentateuch is there any indication that any of it is a metaphor. I don’t recall anywhere in the NT where Jesus prefaces his remarks with “…and I am speaking metaphorically here”. It is up to the listener/reader to interpret that what he is saying is metaphorical. That gets very dicey. A metaphor to one is truth to another – especially if God is saying it.

      • Yofiel Malachi Yacov says:

        I agree, I googled biblical anachronisms after I found a SWORD in the creation account. Why is God using something that’s obvious a man-made object? That doesn’t make sense and That’s also led to my conversation. If one jot or tittal, is wrong, it’s all wrong. No adam and eve, no original sin. No original sin, no Jesus Christ.

        Hell, No moses,(no arcahelogical proof) no judaism.

      • “If the Bible is the Word of God, then why is it wrong to believe that if one word is wrong, it must be all wrong?” -> Silly reasoning (and convenient). Do you even find in the Bible the claim that it is the literal word of God ? You’re clearly looking at the Christian faith the wrong way round: we accept the Bible as God’s word because we believe it to be a genuine testimony , an accurate reflection of His Word, teaching and providence (regardless of the alleged or real contradictions/discrepancies that it may contain). Whereas you like to think otherwise, namely, that we accept the biblical testimony as a genuine one only because we believe the Bible to be God’s Word. But that belief is not a prerequisite at all (except in some remote parts of the US as MitchellGolden has rightly pointed out above). Let’s take an example : If, say, Jesus really resurrected from the dead but that on the other hand, the flood was a localized event rather than a global one. Would that fact invalidate Christianity or rather atheism? which one of the two belief systems would turn out to be a delusion ? It therefore takes only one of the Bible core stories to be true for atheism to collapse as a belief system. You got it the wrong way round mate.

        As for the Bible talking in “metaphors”, let me help you a bit since you “don’t recall anywhere in the NT” finding such occurrences. How about these verses :
        – Os.12:10 I spoke to the prophets; and I multiplied visions, and through them I uttered parables
        – Ps.78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,
        – Ez.17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel
        – Ez.24:3 Propose this parable to the rebellious house and say to them: Thus says the Lord God…
        – Jn.10:6 6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
        – Jn.8:43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.
        – Jn.16:25 These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father.
        – Mt.13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them

        Yes my friend. It may come to you as a surprise, but parable is indeed God’s language in the Bible. The fact that you could miss out on such important passages really gave you up. This is very indicative of your ignorance on this topic. And yet, you make remarkably stark and bold statements for someone that is not even qualified.

  5. Tom says:

    Both the dromedary (the seven-humped camel of Arabia) and the Bactrian camel (the two-humped camel of Central Asia) had been domesticated since before 2000 BC.

    • Not so according to recent research by archeologists of unbiased objectivity. See link above.

      • Uh, the link above takes the reader to a site that actually supports Tom! For example, from one of the footnotes: ‘However, there is now a growing body of scholars who believe that camel domestication must have occurred earlier than previously thought (prior to the 12th century BC) and that the patriarchal narratives accurately reflect this (e.g., Ripinsky 1984; Coote and Whitelam 1987: 102; Zarins 1992: 826; Borowski 1998: 112–18).’, Younker, ‘Bronze Age Camel Petroglyphs In The Wadi Nasib, Sinai’, Bible and Spade (13.75), 2000.
        After all, the site you linked to is called “Bible Apologetics”!

      • Ron Hermiston says:

        The problem with the perceived camel dilemma is the use of the word domesticated.While it may be accurate to say that the camel was not domesticated in the broader sense,archeological evidence as well as written documented evidence reveals that the camel was in use at least sporadically and minimally in anywhere from a 700 to 1100 kilometer circumference around Canaan at the time and prior to Abraham’s entrance to the area.References to milking of camels,carvings of warriors riding camels,archeological evidence in the form of camel milk residue along with camel hair found in jars,are documented from Egypt, Syria,Turkey,Babylon(Place of origin of Abraham…Abraham did not come from Canaan but did come from an area where camel use by man was at least minimal).Simply put, the usage, hundreds of years before Abraham’s time and during,of camels,was very likely limited to a very small degree,but in use almost certainly.A small localized use of camels in present day Israel during Biblical times would explain the absence of archeological evidence in the form of any fossil record in the vicinity of Canaan.As far as the supposed anachronisms concerning place names like Ai and Arad etc.are concerned,the sites that archeology has located as being these places may not in fact be the ones the Bible is referring too.This has occurred at times when attempting to identify places uncovered by archeologists with Biblical place names.One example is Bethlehem.There are 2 Bethlehems relatively close to each other.One near Jerusalem.The other in Galilee.This is a case where more than one place with the same name has been the cause of speculation but ultimately, an explanation is found.Archeologists claimed that there was no significant occupation of Bethlehem near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ birth.However,there was in Bethlehem of Galilee.Another example is Luz.As for Chaldeans.It can be argued that this is the Greek name for Akkadians,who were in this area well before the Chaldeans of the 9th century BC.Arad as a point of fact,was occupied during the time of Joshua’s invasion of Canaan,as chronicled by the Phararoh Shoshenq 1 of Egypt .(mentioned in the Bible).The description of the conquests of these places as described in the Bible were dramatic and picturesque beings as we are dealing with literature here.The actual events,though i believe are historical facts,seem to be larger than life.An example of the reader being taken to a level of epic proportions when reading literature,even accurate historical literature,can be understood in the recording of King Herods massacre of all male children under a certain age in the vicinity of Bethlehem.When one reads the narrative here,one can picture hundreds of children being murdered when in fact scholars seem to think it may have been no more than 2 or 3 dozen.A seeming over dramatic,larger than life historical account does not indicate falsehood.In light of the ever changing shifting sands of archeology in the middle east,it is intellectually precarious to make such objective claims as the ones made by the author here.Honestly.If Macro evolutionists can claim there will be a scientific explanation for OoL sooner or later,then christians can certainly use the same argument for these so called anachronisms.The one main difference of course is the Judeo Christian track record of proving this as shown in just one of many examples involving Bethlehem.OaL has made no new strides for many,many decades.BTW.I an an OAC.

New Evidence? Comments?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s