Close Topic Options

Bible Blunders

Bible Blunders

Do you think there are verses in the Bible that just do not make sense due to mistranslations? If so, which verse or verses and why does it not make sense?

Blunders Bible

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel," (Isaiah 7:14).

The hebrew word translated as virgin is Almah. While almah can possibly be used as 'virgin', the word almah is used in every other place in the old testament for young maiden. Not one who has not known a man.
The word "occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 ("maiden"); Exodus 2:8 ("girl"); Psalm 68:25 ("maidens"); Proverbs 30:19 ("maiden"); Song of Songs 1:3 ("maidens").

Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin: bethulah. If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?

But how did this blooper happen? Well, around 200 B.C. the old testament was translated into Greek. Depending on who you believe, almah translates into parthenos in greek. In Hebrews there are different words for maiden and virgin and the words can be interchangable. Almah has a distinct usage as maiden in the bible, greek essentially translates both into parthenos. Parthenos is also the word used to translate the Hebrew work na'arah which means young girl. So using that logic, almah and na'arah, are both translated into parthenos which means virgin in Greek. Both Almah and Na'arah relate to young women or girls. The biblical and hebrew historical usage and meaning of the two words lets us know that the hebrew scholars did not intend for the verse to be prophetic of a virgin birth, and indeed to this day they do not interpret that scripture to mean that the Messiah will be born of a virgin.

Bible Blunders Revealed Bible The

All right, here is one not many will catch I'm sure.

Exodus 9
6 And the next day the LORD did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died.

Ok, so plague number 5, God kills all the livestock of the Egyptians, sucks to be an egyptian cow.

Exodus 12
29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.

Must be tough to strike down the first born of livestock when ALL the livestock are dead already. This one goes on the Bible blooper reel!

Blunders Bible

Maybe this is just me in my ignorance, but this makes sense to me:

There was a passage of time between the 5th and last of the plagues, so the Egyptians may have acquired more livestock by this time.
And, the final plague applied to the Isrealites (who had livestock) and the Egyptians (who lost their livestock, but may have replaced some of it by then), so it stands to reason that the angel of death could have taken the first-born of the livestock, there just probably would not have been alot to take.

Message Edited! Persephone: It is not necessary to quote the entire post of the user above you. See Constructive Posting Policy.

Blunders Bible

Now see, thats stretching to information you don't have to fill in the gaps in the Bible that don't make sense. Thats a surprising argument to hear from an agnostic, I would expect this more from someone religious. But according to Jewish tradition, these plagues happened very close to each other. Now Egypt was huge remember, this is not something that just happened in one city, it happened over the expanse of the largest empire ever to exist on earth at that time. Thus, that vast amount of livestock lost would not easily be recovered from. Besides, the plagues didn't stop, which gave them less time to get livestock from somewhere else. Your idea is technically plausible, but highly unlikely.

Bible Blunders

First of all, it wasn't an argument. Most things that I say which contradict something, are merely observations.

Offtopic but, Second, agnostic is just the best way I could find of representing how I look at things religiously. I simply haven't made up my mind yet. And third, thanks for your response. That's the kind of response I love getting: one that makes me think and challenges my logic. That's my whole purpose behind participating in message boards.

Message Edited! Persephone: Please use the offtopic tags when saying something that has nothing to do with the subject of the Thread.

Bible Blunders

It is possible that chapter 9 and chapter 12 were gathered from different traditions, and form part of the bricollage from which some of the oldest biblical texts were composed.

Chapter nine reports that all the livestock of the Egyptians died, whereas 12 states that in addition to the firstborn sone of the Egyptians being struck dead, so were the firstborn of all their livestock.

Clearly these are two discrete accounts, and it is unnecessary to attempt to reconcile the differing accounts. If one has an understanding of what the Bible actually is, rather than what some insist it is, then these variations become matters of no real import.


Capn Moroni