What do you think?
Rate this book
Self-Contradictions of the Bible
Critical Views of the Bible
78 pages, Paperback
Published November 7, 2007
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 11, 2019
Interesting compilation, but some of the 'contradictions' need to be considered in the context in which they were written to be better understood...
June 25, 2021
This is an out-of-copyright work dating from 1860. The book gives a simple list of 144 inconsistencies in the King James Bible, with no commentary apart from brief headings for each inconsistency from the author, and a few parenthetical remarks. The inconsistencies seem to vary in severity, ranging from the debatable (such as #115 whether putting Jesus to death was "lawful" - it seems the missing subtext is a distinction between Jewish and Roman law) to the calamitous (such as #122 whether there is an afterlife! The bible has it both ways, and you probably didn't hear that in Sunday School).
For a more comprehensive introduction to the larger controversy this book is part of, see the Internal consistency of the Bible article on Wikipedia. For modern (and much more extensive) critiques of Christianity, see (among many others) the books and anthologies of John W. Loftus (such as The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails).
To anyone with the bare minimum of critical thinking capacity, the internal consistency of a testimony or work is a necessary condition for its credibility. For example, if in a court proceeding a witness gives conflicting testimony on cross-examination, the witness loses (or should lose) credibility with the jury. Opposing counsel, if competent, will rip the inconsistent witness to shreds. In logic, the Law of noncontradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. This law is vital because the principle of explosion states that anything follows from a contradiction. Given that the Christian bible has given rise to at least 40,000 different denominations/sects/schools/schisms, between them disagreeing on almost every imaginable point of doctrine, Christianity looks like a case study in doctrinal explosion. That is, the abundant contradictions in the foundational text force every Christian to interpret at least some parts of it to mean something other than what is plainly written. The tendency to interpret is always present, but when contradictions appear they demand it. Since different people interpret in randomly different ways, the unavoidable result is a multiplicity of interpretations. And that is what we see in Christendom, with its Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and on and on it goes.
Understandably, any list of bible contradictions directly threatens the $1 trillion tax exempt annual revenue stream enjoyed by organized religion in just the United States, which ultimately rests on the people who get paid having some claim to authority. Therefore we can expect valiant attempts from the hucksters on that gravy train to rationalize away the bible's literal contradictions (see for example The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation). The standard apologetics approach is to cast about for some ad hoc interpretation of one or both sets of contradictory passages that forces them into harmony. But this raises the question that should be obvious to anyone not blinded by faith: if you are free to intepret literally conflicting passages to force them into coherence, why are you not just as free to interpret literally agreeing passages to make them contradictory? Why is it with Christian apologists, "Heads I win, tails you lose"? Why is all the energy of interpretation biased in the direction of making the product look good? My question is rhetorical, as I think I know the answer. Apologists spend their careers polishing the turd for the same reason that any corporation's advertising is biased. The goal is to sell - to move product for profit. Truth must always be secondary. That is, whenever truth conflicts with making a buck, truth will just have to take one for the team.
Another question that fairly shouts itself: why is the bible so unable to stand on its own? Surely the omnipotent creator of the universe ought to be able to give us a plain-language book that speaks for itself and doesn't require an apologetics industry to explain away its faults. Why would God go out of his way to give us a book that isn't even up to the editorial standards of some purely human works?
The internal inconsistency barely scratches the surface on what's wrong the book. There are also the copious historical and scientific inaccuracies, along with outright immoral commands. (For the gory details see The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.) Although the apologist's living is not an honest one, at least he doesn't shy from a challenge! It's a bit like Rudy Giuliani telling preposterous lies in court except that lawyers have to answer to oversight boards eventually.
For a more comprehensive introduction to the larger controversy this book is part of, see the Internal consistency of the Bible article on Wikipedia. For modern (and much more extensive) critiques of Christianity, see (among many others) the books and anthologies of John W. Loftus (such as The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails).
To anyone with the bare minimum of critical thinking capacity, the internal consistency of a testimony or work is a necessary condition for its credibility. For example, if in a court proceeding a witness gives conflicting testimony on cross-examination, the witness loses (or should lose) credibility with the jury. Opposing counsel, if competent, will rip the inconsistent witness to shreds. In logic, the Law of noncontradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. This law is vital because the principle of explosion states that anything follows from a contradiction. Given that the Christian bible has given rise to at least 40,000 different denominations/sects/schools/schisms, between them disagreeing on almost every imaginable point of doctrine, Christianity looks like a case study in doctrinal explosion. That is, the abundant contradictions in the foundational text force every Christian to interpret at least some parts of it to mean something other than what is plainly written. The tendency to interpret is always present, but when contradictions appear they demand it. Since different people interpret in randomly different ways, the unavoidable result is a multiplicity of interpretations. And that is what we see in Christendom, with its Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and on and on it goes.
Understandably, any list of bible contradictions directly threatens the $1 trillion tax exempt annual revenue stream enjoyed by organized religion in just the United States, which ultimately rests on the people who get paid having some claim to authority. Therefore we can expect valiant attempts from the hucksters on that gravy train to rationalize away the bible's literal contradictions (see for example The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation). The standard apologetics approach is to cast about for some ad hoc interpretation of one or both sets of contradictory passages that forces them into harmony. But this raises the question that should be obvious to anyone not blinded by faith: if you are free to intepret literally conflicting passages to force them into coherence, why are you not just as free to interpret literally agreeing passages to make them contradictory? Why is it with Christian apologists, "Heads I win, tails you lose"? Why is all the energy of interpretation biased in the direction of making the product look good? My question is rhetorical, as I think I know the answer. Apologists spend their careers polishing the turd for the same reason that any corporation's advertising is biased. The goal is to sell - to move product for profit. Truth must always be secondary. That is, whenever truth conflicts with making a buck, truth will just have to take one for the team.
Another question that fairly shouts itself: why is the bible so unable to stand on its own? Surely the omnipotent creator of the universe ought to be able to give us a plain-language book that speaks for itself and doesn't require an apologetics industry to explain away its faults. Why would God go out of his way to give us a book that isn't even up to the editorial standards of some purely human works?
The internal inconsistency barely scratches the surface on what's wrong the book. There are also the copious historical and scientific inaccuracies, along with outright immoral commands. (For the gory details see The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.) Although the apologist's living is not an honest one, at least he doesn't shy from a challenge! It's a bit like Rudy Giuliani telling preposterous lies in court except that lawyers have to answer to oversight boards eventually.
March 24, 2022
Some were interesting, but I’ve already heard them.
But 50% were things like “look oaths are condoned here, but Jesus says not to take an oath!” And they skip the part where Jesus acknowledges “you have heard” and then indicates a modification of your understanding by saying “but I say to you.” So many of these are just the New Testament following up on Old Testament concepts, while explicitly acknowledging them.
And like 15% were just flat wrong like “God said don’t marry your sister but look at this verse where Abraham says Sarah is his sister!” And then they quote the verse where Abraham lies about who Sarah is and then it gets exposed later as a lie and literally the fact that it’s untrue is the entire point.
If I didn’t know this was written before computers I would think that the author just typed key words into google and then began entering the verses into the book without ever reading the context.
But 50% were things like “look oaths are condoned here, but Jesus says not to take an oath!” And they skip the part where Jesus acknowledges “you have heard” and then indicates a modification of your understanding by saying “but I say to you.” So many of these are just the New Testament following up on Old Testament concepts, while explicitly acknowledging them.
And like 15% were just flat wrong like “God said don’t marry your sister but look at this verse where Abraham says Sarah is his sister!” And then they quote the verse where Abraham lies about who Sarah is and then it gets exposed later as a lie and literally the fact that it’s untrue is the entire point.
If I didn’t know this was written before computers I would think that the author just typed key words into google and then began entering the verses into the book without ever reading the context.
July 19, 2022
There are those (and not all that many) who proclaim that The Bible is the word of God (whatever that means). If this God is perfect, why is it that this book has so many contradictions? To be fair, some of the contradictions pointed out are something of a stretch, but a vast majority of them are clearly contradictory. This book is a handy reference to backing the argument that The Bible is not the word of any perfect God (unless contradiction is a sign of perfection). As religious books go, The Bible is such a hodge-podge of sad nonsense that it's hard to take seriously as a whole body of work. Sure, there are some good parts, but those parts are few and far between. Why not edit the damn thing and be done with it? If you want a book to inspire, you'll have to be open to letting the thing evolve. As Homer J. Simpson said, "This book has no answers!"
February 28, 2018
A good reference for quickly identifying Bible versus that contradict each other.
Read
October 23, 2025Does the world's most read holy book contain truths? Or is it riddled with self-contradictions? William Henry Burr takes a close examination of the Bible in its own words.
January 6, 2014
I don't even want to mention that the word of any god should not have any contradictions. However I am willing to accept that the bible is just a collection of tales and orally-transmitted stories from a lot of different authors. What I find most shocking are the contradictions that are found so close to each other: in the same book, and even in the same chapter. I always struggle with the claim that the bible dictates moral directions, especially when it is so confusing and the christian god never seemed to speak clearly. However, since very few christians/catholics actually read the whole bible, I can see why they do not see these contradictions.
Of course, I also struggle with the literal vs. figurative interpretation of the bible since there is no objective way of deciding what is what, it is just molded to each person's/institution's interests.
Anyway, I think Burr did an amazing job, I can't imagine how much knowledge and attention is required in order to find all these discrepancies in such an extensive book.
Of course, I also struggle with the literal vs. figurative interpretation of the bible since there is no objective way of deciding what is what, it is just molded to each person's/institution's interests.
Anyway, I think Burr did an amazing job, I can't imagine how much knowledge and attention is required in order to find all these discrepancies in such an extensive book.
March 11, 2014
A good "Intro To ___" book, but while covers a lot of the Bible, only disagreeing verses are paired up. Context is disregarded, but gives a good idea where one can start refuting the infallibility of the so-called "Word of God."
October 1, 2011
Infomative for literal interpretations of the Bible.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews