I love religious lists – especially those involving facts or debunkings. In memory of the very popular list on factlets people get wrong I have put this one together inspired by the same excellent source. Be sure to add your own factlets to the comments, and when you are done, check out the Top 10 Misconceptions About the Bible. This list also features a competition, so be sure to check out the bonus item.
Contrary to popular belief, Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden not because they ate the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but in order to prevent them from eating from the tree of life (both forbidden trees are in Genesis 2:9) which would have made them eternal. God doesn’t like competition! Here is the verse (Genesis 3:22-23): “And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. [23] And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken.”
We all know the tale of Jonah and the whale… but how well do we know it? Well enough to know that he wasn’t eaten by a whale? It was no mammal that ate Jonah – it was a huge fish – though its type is not mentioned. Of course, I am presuming that everyone reading this list knows that a whale is not a fish.
Samson and Delilah is a famous story from the Old Testament which ends rather badly, as Samson’s long hair is cut short to destroy his strength. The common misconception is that Delilah was the one to give him the chop – a kind of ancient bobbit if you will. But in fact, it was Delilah’s servant who did it.
The “Rapture” is not in the Bible! Despite being believed by a large number of protestants (many of whom also believe that only that which is in the Bible can be true) it was actually invented in the 1600s by one Cotton Mather – otherwise famous for murdering women by strangling them to death (by hanging) in the Salem witch trials. The term in the Bible commonly mistranslated to the word “rapture” actually comes from the Greek ἁρπάζω (harpazo) which actually means “caught up” or “taken away” and it refers to one person only (Philip).
There weren’t three and they didn’t visit Jesus in a manger. The Bible gives neither the number of men (but does the number of gifts as three, which is probably where this misconception stems from). Additionally, Herod demanded the death of all boys under two, making it probable that Christ had been born up to two years prior. Also, the wise men visited Jesus when he lived in a house according to the Biblical account in Matthew 2:11.
The Bible does not condemn drinking alcohol (remember that Jesus’ first public miracle was turning water into wine at a wedding party), or gambling and betting. The closest it comes to the latter is to recommend against get rich quick schemes (Ecclesiastes 5:10) and loving money excessively. Be sure to remember that next time you are sipping your wine at the local casino. Addendum: “The Bible does NOT condemn the drinking of alcohol – that misconception is a holdover from Calvinistic and Purtanical Prtotestantism – which worked its way into Methodism etc; What the Bible DOES say is “Be not DRUNK of the fruit of the vine” – at the same time many gainsayers will claim that the water was turned into grape juice – but the original Gospels clearly use a word which translates from the original Greek as WINE a “fermented grape beverage”. [addendum courtesy of carra 23]. Traditionally drunk means “falling down drunk” – in other words, the loss of the will to control oneself.
“God helps those who help themselves” – a wise and good quote that everyone knows is from the Bible. But, in fact, it isn’t. It was a man, not a god who coined the well known (and overused) proverb. It was Benjamin Franklin in his Poor Richard’s almanac.
Another quote we all know from the Bible is “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Now ask yourself – do you know what God’s answer was to this question? You don’t – no one does because the Bible doesn’t tell us what He replied. If God were to have answered, we can presume it would have been in the affirmative if all of the other commands to look after our brothers in the New Testament are taken into consideration.
The Virgin Mary is not described in the Bible as having travelled to Bethlehem on a donkey. No mention is made at all in the gospels of the mode of transport used in the journey. The first mention of her riding a donkey comes from the non-Biblical Protoevangelium of James which you can read here. It was written around 150AD and is also one of the oldest works to describe Mary as a virgin both before and after the birth of Christ. The exact quote from the Protoevangelium is “And he [Joseph] saddled the ass, and set her upon it;”
This has been mentioned in passing in comments on previous lists but it definitely warrants a mention here. Unlike most of the misconceptions here which deal specifically with what the Bible says or doesn’t say, this one is a misconception about the translation of part of it. The Old Testament refers to Moses as having horns on his head after he went up the mountain to see God. This prompted Michaelangelo to sculpt him with the horns. Many people believe that this was due to a mistranslation of the description of Moses but, in fact, it isn’t. Moses really is described as being horned. And the reason for this? In Old Testament times, a person who was believed to have seen or been touched by God was described as having horns (or rays of light) coming from their head. It was an ancient symbol much like today’s gloriole.
[NOTE: The competition has now ended and the two winners of the beautiful Bible are: 23redleader and MrsBenLinus - congratulations!]
In honor of this list being about Biblical misconceptions and the fact that Christmas is almost one week away, we are having a competition. After the publication of tomorrow’s list I will choose two commenters at random to win a copy of the Haydock Bible – a stunning leather bound Bible which has a commentary alongside each verse giving interpretations from the early Christian fathers. It is my favorite edition of the Bible and it is an impressive size (11×9 inches). This book is valued at $118 USD and we will deliver to any country.
Wow..is all i can say, and If you really want 2 find the truth Please read the BIBLE more carefully..especially Revalations
And when you do, you read “Revelation.” No “s.”
Interesting list
normally, i'm not that interested in religious lists, but this was an exception.
I'm always disappointed when a list is on a subject with which I am well acquainted. These weren't the types of facts that I was expecting, but this is certainly less inflammatory than what I had in mind. Speaking of inflammatory, let the flame war begin.
Good list. I believed most of what is "wrong" I guess, but not really being devout I wouldn't really trust me knowledge of these things.
That is the point of this list – most so-called devout religious people shouldn't be aware of most of these items (or so I hope anyway)
Jfrater,
You do realize the contradiction in number 10 do you not?
some of the problems like this paradox could well be down to poor translation from old hebrew to hebrew then latin and finally to english
@mike, something you should know, the bible wasn’t translated from old hebrew to hebrew then latin and finally to english.
Our modern bibles are translated straight from the origional greek and hebrew documents.
There isn’t a contradiction in number 10. The point is that they had to be prevented from eating from the tree of life as it would mean that they would live forever IN A STATE OF SIN.
But surely, If they were going to live forever then the fact that they would be living in sin would be a little bit irrelevant? I mean, I know the idea is that you should avoid sin at all costs, to be a good person etc (for the record, I’m not religious, just intrigued) … however, if you will never die, what is the consequence of living in sin? you won’t go to hell or anything.
the consequence of living is sin has never been hell in the sence that you are talking about. do some real deep reserch on hell and you will find its just a word that means the grave. the consequence of living forever in sin is that you will never have a relationship with god that was intended. there is so much that we in our sin full state miss out on because god cannot be close to us.
You do realize biblical fact is an oxymoron?
You do realize that you’re a moron right? You seem like the type of guy who thinks the Bible is fake because you’re mommy and daddy raised you that way. If you ever bothered to do any research before making such foolish statements, you would know that there are numerous facts that come out of the Bible and that not a single claim in the Bible has ever been debunked. Sure, you’re atheist friends might give some hypothesis trying to debunk things in the Bible, but not a single such hypothesis has ever been proven.
@Rick-I’m sure you meant to say “YOUR atheist friends” since you obviously failed 4th grade English. No, unlike you who were spoonfed this claptrap from Mommy and Daddy and pedophile clergy, I not only read it myself with an open mind, I cross checked its highly unlikely fables with non fiction science books and came to MY OWN CONCLUSIONS. Your (should I say “you’re” which means you are, or maybe “yore”) invisible man in the sky, IF he exited (no proof-in fact there is more “proof” of Santa Claus) should be tried for the thousands of perverted, IMMORAL, heinous, genocidal, UNGODLY, PURELY EVIL things he has done or caused to be done IN HIS NAME. He appears like the vast majority of his followers who pay lip service to this made up book but do whatever the hell they want in private until they get caught and blame another made-up guy. I am moral because I want to be, not because I’ll be punished if I’m not. I see Christians every day who should ask themselves “what would Jesus do?” because this hypothetical dude wouldn’t be down with the crap they pull or try to pull. Religion IS the opiate of the masses, a crutch for weak minds who can’t think for themselves, and a pyramid scam. For your (not you’re, imbecile) last point, the burden of proof is on YOU. Show me PROOF of ANYTHING in the bible other than generic “Egyptians live in Egypt” stuff. Stuff we can prove as false? Take this one of hundreds-Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also..” The moon was created when a large body struck the nascent earth WAY more than 6,000 years ago, and has no light. It reflects sunlight. PROVEN. Why is it written otherwise? Because they had no way to know so they MADE IT UP! Your turn-give me one fantastic thing from your book that can be proven. But find an atheist to proofread before you publish, then proceed to do all the stuff you do that you wouldn’t talk about in church. You SEEM like that type of guy. You know of what I speak. But I’m breaking a rule from MY bible. “And lo, thou shalt not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”
Christians, they love to talk about how loving, dutiful and compassionate they are, yet I have yet to meet ONE who does not practice hypocrisy to the highest degree. Their willful ignorance of the Bible combined with their two faced idealism to preach it, has made us sick, hasn’t it? For nearly two thousand years Biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible’s teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralism. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft- noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Christians practice what can only be described as “selective morality”. What they like, they cling to and shove down other’s throats; what they don’t like, they ignore vehemently. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addressed 2,000 years ago. Their hypocrisy is so rampant that even the validity of calling oneself “Christian” is in question. I see so many people enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul’s sermons, but don’t even PRETEND to heed other, equally valid, maxims. I’ve mentioned pro-life and conservatism in other sermons
Archworf, I am waiting for your reply to me. I am asking that you help me to understand how you arrived at your current position about God, Christians and the like. I am particularly interested in the FACTS that you used to help you arrive at your current state of mind and position. I, was once a person who would, in some circles, be labeled an atheist or an agnostic. It was since I personally met Jesus Christ that the anger, uncertainty, fear and bitterness in my life were “washed away”.I welcome dialogue with you. I see such powerful potential in you.
You spelled “existed” wrong. An obvious error you overlooked while writing your (yes, “you’re” correct) smug post. Ass.
@josh “Your” Is Correct, “You’re” Is incorrect as it is short for “You Are”
I have never heard any Theist give any evidence supporting the bible or Creationism EVER.
agreed!! all bibles are man made.
I have been reading listverse fo
I think it was either the late columnist Sidney Harris or cartoonist Charles Schultz (or both) who pointed out that nowhere is Jesus mentioned as smiling or laughing. Schultz made a remark to the effect that “Jesus must have been a lot of fun to be around”.
I would have to say that whether or not Jesus is fun to have around, he was literally the life of the party as no one could ever manage to stay dead while he was around.
He turned water into wine though. I think anyone who can create booze out of water would be fun at a party!
Well, He is known as the man of sorrows. His mission in life wasn't to be the fun guy to hang out with, it was to pay for the sins of the world.
I used to clip Sidney Harris's columns whem I was younger. Are you from the Chicagoland area? He was great!
Nice article. Hope to win the bible!
Normally not a fan of the religious lists but this was quite interesting. I thought I knew genesis pretty well but obviously not cause I had totally forgotten the tree of life.
Adam and Eve were forced to live outside the garden so that they could not eat from the tree of life BECAUSE they had sinned and therefore would live forever in that sinful state, having access to the tree of life and eating of its fruit.
“And the LORD God said, ‘Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.’ 3:23 So the LORD God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 3:24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.”
Such a dumb argument…this not getting kicked out for sinning thing. This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt (by his followers) to prove this god is not cruel.
Doesn’t it make more sense to say we got kicked ot because we were disobedient and not because a god was afraid of the actions of his creation?
Think of it…God must have rationalized that we could not be trusted to eat from this tree because we proved oureselves disobedient by eating from that one.
The end result is we got kicked out for eating from the first tree.
Or you can believe that somehow you worried a god.
well, my question is why would an all knowing god put trees in the garden with two innocent people when he didn’t want them eatting the fruit? and is it weird or just me that eve nor adam seemed the least bit worried about a talking serpent or did all animals talk in the garden. eve was speaking to the serpent without an introduction. had they met before? why would god allow this serpent, who obviously could not be trusted with these two? some how anything i read out of the bible seems like a make believe fairy tale. what ever the reason for them getting kicked out i blame god. he knew better than all involved.
verry well said
Those trees in the garden gave us a choice: to obey or disobey God. God could have made us as obedient robots, but as our divine creator, he created us to be in relationship with him, to love him. God is not a divine rapist, so he does not force us to love him. He gave them a choice, they disobeyed (sinned). Sin separates us from God.
Sidebar regarding #9 – because we define a whale as a mammal now, doesn’t mean that’s how it has always been defined. If you take some pretty traditional mammals and some pretty traditional fish and put a whale between the two groups, which one is a five year old going to say the whale looks more like?…or have people always been schooled in biology over the last 3000 years?
well no people have not been schooled on biology, mainly due to the religious oppression of science over the (thousands of) years. also who asked Adam and Eve to be the representatives for the human race? its no our fault that they messed up is it, i didn’t ask them to represent me. load of all balls if you ask me.
But since the writings are divinely inspired, couldn’t “god” tell them it was a mammal? Ah, but he’s “tricksy”as Gollum would say. Why else would he bury all those phony fossils and stuff?
If God does not force us to love him then how do you explain the options that “The Good News” gives us? (Believe or else…)
We are told that God is omnipresent, all-powerful and full of love, yet he never appears, gets involved in human affairs or shows any sign of his existence. This forces us to make up our own image of him. But the differing image we create of him in our own minds is not enough, we also have to love this image, more so than even our own children as the story of Abraham and Issac teaches.
So we are commanded to unconditionally love an illusion of our own creation or face an eternity in the “brimstone” with the “gnashing of teeth”. This seems both irrational and unfair.
In my opinion, the concept of Free Will is one of the literary master strokes of all time. It completely excuses our concept of God from the question that his inaction throughout history should pose.
the reason he put the trees there is god wants to give us choices. if he controlled every one of our moves would we really be human or puppets? he wants us to choose him over sin. thats why he placed the trees there.
but if no human knew about evil how could they make a choice about something which they no nothing about? they just followed the orders of the nearest creature around and ate some fruit, plus just because two humans messed up it shouldn’t mean that everyone should end up taking the rap for it.
Oh and if god is so merciful why did he create disease’s like cancer?
And if you honestly believe that it is to punish people then you need
to re evaulate your entire life.
Wow! Very interesting list.
Really hard to type message on android phone.
as I was saying …I. have been reading listverse for months and I love the list and the comments. This list was great!
great list i belived some of these before.
Stay tuned for my list of 10 FACTS from “The Hobbit” that everyone gets wrong. Oh, wait, it’s ALL MADE UP!
Very interesting list, didnt know about the rapture.
Personally, I don't accept everything the Bible says as being directly from the Mind of God, but I would respectfully disagree with the rapture entry. "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, New King James Version).
When Paul used the Greek word "harpazo", the equivalent word for this in Latin is "rapio" from which derives the Latin word "rapturo" from which we derived the word "rapture". So, it's fair to say that even if the word isn't there, it's more likely that it isn't there because the word really didn't exist, but the concept certainly seems to be there.
Whether Paul was right or not remains to be seen (I think Paul was full of beans on many things), and whether there WILL be a rapture is up in the air. But to go so far as to say it's not in the Bible? I don't agree.
I agree with your comment. The word “trinity” is not in the bible either, however, we christians hold that concept to be fundamental in our understanding of Christ.
PS would love to win that bible!
I love your comment. I always argue with people who stand firm with their weird logic about trinity. They would always quote John 1:1. Bah, being together with the God Father doesn’t mean they are one existence? Didn’t Jesus pray to Father for many times? What kind of person would pray to himself? They are separate beings to begin with. Jesus is the son.
Jesus told his disciple that when he would die and go before the father, that he would send the Paraclete or (Holy Ghost), who will comfort and guide you in all things.
There are several examples of the Trinity (though the word isn’t mentioned). Besides ones already provided, there’s also the instance of Jesus’ baptism – Jesus the Son was baptised physically, the Holy Sprit ‘descended like a dove’ (John 1:32), and the Father spoke saying “This is my beloved Son…”
Also, in Genesis when Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden, God again speaks of himself plural (see the quoted reference at the top of the page).
I know there are others, but I just woke up and that’s all I can remember off the top of my head.
It is true that the word “trinity” is not in the bible, I believe it is not because the word is too ‘limited’ G-d has many aspects or personalities (prehaps 7 – see Revlation).
check out the bible numerical patterns
Ivan Panin is the guy that discovered it
The passage in 1 Thessalonians 4 refers to the second coming, the same event as in Matthew 24:29-31. Jesus is only coming back once, not twice. There will not be a second coming followed by a third coming. Rapture is a myth never heard of until 1590 when that false interpretation of text was spread as a political ploy. A careful reading of the word will clear it up. Rapture is not written.
A comprehensive bible study on the subject can be found at rapturemyth.blogspot.com See what the bible actually says about it from Psalm through Revelation. What is commonly taught is not what is written.
they are not saying that the rapture doesn’t exist. they are just saying that the word “rapture” is not in the Bible. which it isnt.
“Rap-ture, be pure, take a tour through the sewer.”
I was raised on the Old Testament so I know very little about the New Testament so all those facts came as a real surprise to me. I am New Testament clueless.
At least your intro to it is based in fact and not zealotry
Interesting lost. Love moses’ horns lol!
Related to item #2, I was listening to a Christmas Carol recently which says Christ was born on the day. I felt that is one of the biggest and most popular misconceptions about Christ. Christmas is celebrated to commemorate Christ's birth and not on the birthday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
I considered adding that as an entry but thought most people would know it was just chosen by the early Church for convenience sake. Having said that – He could have been born on the 25th of Dec – no one knows for certain so any day is as good as any other.
We know he died when he was 33 1/2 and we know the date for that so he was probably born in September or October.
Good list.
Unless they lost/gained days because of inaccuracies in the calendar, which is probable.
We KNOW nothing. Some people BELIEVE *****. FAITH IS THE OPPOSITE OF PROOF! Prove ONE THING the bible says. COLD. HARD. PROOF. Can’t be done.
…waiting on that death certificate, or any proof of death…or life…waiting…
You’re Kidding, Right? Okay, I am not a believer of Christ. I believe in Astrology, and Urge you all to examine the Parallels between bible imagery and Astrological Symbols. It is no coincidence that the year we attribute Christs birth to was also the EXACT year that the Piscean age began (and incase you are wondering, we are still in said age. The Aquarian age begins 2160 no matter what 5th Dimension says.) However, I do believe in Logic also. For those of you that chose to believe in the bible story of Christ, it says “And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby,
keeping watch over their flocks at night.” – Luke 2:8. In late December, there is snow on the Ground in the Area around Jerusalem most years, and as anyone that lives with snow nows, It is actually warmer after it starts snowing, so even if it hadn’t yet snowed that year, It would have been FAR to could for a woman to give birth and care for a newborn in the exposed environment of a Manger. The temperatures drop consistently to between 44 and 29 F at that time of the year in Bethlahem and a Manger is basically like a Carport of today, with Sometime 3 but most times only 2 Walls and a roof. Besides that, traditionally Shepards in that area would send there Flocks to the fields and deserts at just after Passover which is in early spring (Easter is the first Sunday after Passover to put it in a Christian timeframe.) and then the Shepards would camp with them Day and Night until they where brought back in at the beginning of the Rainy Season which is between the beginning and the middle of October. The Flocks would be brought in by No later than the 15th of October in any given year. Thus Precluding the time between October 16th and Passover from being the time of Christs birth as there would be no Shepards in the Field. Further more, The birth took place when they were returning to the City of Josephs Fathers for the census, which would not have taken place during the winter months of late October to Early April, as everyone had to return to the “Cities of their Fathers” and widespread Travel would be impractical and unpopular in the very cold and rainy or snowy conditions.
A much more likely scenario is that the Census was held, and thus Christ was Born, a few days before or after the Feast of Tabernacles (or Sukkot, a kind of Jewish Thanksgiving) Where the Families would have already have all come together as was the custom (Much as it is for our Thanksgiving holiday today). This was held between the middle of September to the middle of October, and thus was very close to the end of the Herding Season when the Flocks would be brought in. But at any rate, While it is true that we may not know the Exact date of Christs supposed birth, it can atleast be very certainly be placed between Passover and The Feast of Tabernacles on the Jewish calendar, or March and October of the Julian Calendar, and it was most certainly not on Dec. 25th
And yet, the Catholic Church celebrates the feast day of John the Baptist's birth on June 24, because a verse in Luke says that his mother was 6 months pregnant when Mary conceived Jesus. It seems to me that Catholic Church probably tried to pass December 25 off as Jesus's actual birthday, but later had to admit that the date was wrong and was just used to "commemorate" his birth.
so when is the best time to celebrate “The Birth”??? don’t you rather wanna have it on the birth date itself? duh! oh and i know Christmas is also a season(the spirit of the season) and not just the date itself. don’t believe what the author(jfrater) has been trying to tell us..most of his explanations are a joke, that is, without doctrinal reference..
If I gave you a quarter, could you buy a clue? He’s telling where to go look and read it for yourself. It’s there, in your book! Go. Read. Learn.
merry christmas to everyone…hope the Bible makes a good christmas present for someone
one of the best list so far….im sure it will make some of the religious fanatics angry but i dont give a damn, its time that some of them realises that they have been inter^preting the bible the wrong way all along, and i hope it will make some of them to finally shut up!!…lol
As one of the religious fanatics why should I be angry? Knowing things like Mary may not have ridden on a donkey, there may have been more than 3 wise men or it wasn't Delilah that cut Samsons hair isn't going to give me a crisis of faith. I wouldnt be very strong in my beliefs if they did.
i think it’s the opposite for me. because of all the mis-facts i’m wondering what else did they screw up? how many more things aren’t true. how much of what i know about this silent and invisible god is real? you talk about faith, but how can you have faith in things that are not true?
Tripsyman, it is refreshing to hear of strong beliefs without literal interpretation. Peace.
I’m another religious “fanatic” and have no reason to be mad either? Why would you think that? These weren’t Christian tenents. I have read the bible and was already aware of these facts.
I'm a Christian (I guess fanatic might be a good word, despite its negative connotations haha). I have no reason to be angry because anyone who has actually read the Bible would agree that this list is correct!
Plus I'll agree with tripsyman… even if a religious fanatic had these misconceptions, they're such minor details that I doubt it would cause any loss of faith.
Anyway, great list! That Bible sounds like a great prize
Since I am usually considered a religious fanatic, I find it amusing that I enjoyed this list as well.
“religion is flawed because man is flawed”
An overall interesting list, makes you wonder what else we get wrong on an everyday basis.
“religion is flawed because man is flawed”, because man made up gods and religion. If their god existed as described, there would be no flaws, and no need to steadfastly offer NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. NONE. EVER. NOT ONCE. Come on, buddy. Just appear and stop one tsunami just before it hits the beach and kills hundred of innocents. Ain’t gonna happen! Don’t bother to call, NO ONE IS HOME!
That the speed of light is as fast as it can go. See Neutrino.
merry christmas everyone! ^_^ lol. as usual, we got swept off our feet by another interesting article from jamie!
i just can't help but laugh at loud for item #5. now i have a proof to tell the girl that i'm courting right now that it's okey to drink alcoholic drinks once in a while. she won't say yes until i stop drinking alcoholic drinks.
perhaps a bible gift can make her say yes. lol.
great list though. keep up the good work jamie. ^_^
Nobody in the Salem Witch Trials died of being burnt. Most everyone was hung, and one man was pressed with stones until he died. Just fyi. Otherwise, it was a decent list. Not as good as some on here, better than others.
You are right – it slipped my mind. I have included that fact on another list – I will change it immediately.
While Cotton Mather did write about the Salem Witch Trials, he was not present or responsible for any of the prosecutions or punishments.
actually, I did know about #4.. but was never sure where "the rapture" came from…
Here you go: 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 (New American Standard Bible)
16For the Lord (A)Himself (B)will descend from heaven with a (C)shout, with the voice of (D)the archangel and with the (E)trumpet of God, and (F)the dead in Christ will rise first.
17Then (G)we who are alive and remain will be (H)caught up together with them (I)in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always (J)be with the Lord.
righteous list
Interesting list done in a non-inflammatory way. Of course, that won't stop the flamers.
Though so far it has – which is definitely a plus
I definitely fell into some of these traps!
“God doesn’t like competition!”
If I were a god I wouldn’t want competition either.
I wonder if god likes competitions where the prize is a bible.
It wasn't that he didn't want competition, he didn't want man to live eternally in his sinful state. More reading is required I think, perhaps some study as well.
We that have kids do not want them to follow the ills that we encounter in knowledge and life.. I fail to see how this is cause to think of “competition”. I see it as a kind of protection of his kids that he loves and does not wish them to have their eyes opened to the consequences of that decision. I find it interesting that your feelings are that you are equal to God with exception that you are kept from that point… I see this from my 4 year old that hates it that I keep her from climbing on the kitchen counters in fear of her falling to the ground.
I hope this makes the point.
I'm actually sort of surprised how many of these I wasn't aware were misconceptions!
I really enjoyed this list. I have always wanted to read the Bible cover to cover. References to it are so pervasive in literature, I feel left out a lot of the time :'(
I tried that once (reading it from cover to cover). I got lost with the x begat x who begat y who begat z. Zzzzzz.
once you get past that part, it turns better. the only issue is that it's a lot of pages, and it only gets slower and slower once you get further into to the book.
now, i have also not finished it yet, but that's mostly because i had an issue with the size of the bible and the type of paper my version has; it's a pocket with paper that's almost as thin as what is used for homemade cigaret. hard to read that.
I’ve read a considerable amountof it, but I can’t get through it. I decided to just read the parts I thought were cool. My great grandmother on the other hand, has read it at least 7 times since her childhood.
Don't let that deter you! Over the summer I had started reading it cover to cover & pretty much slogged my way through that part. Once you're past it, it gets much better.
My church did a ” read the bible in a year” challenge and I swear it was the best thing I’ve ever done. You only read a little bit OT and NT a day and I confess a skipped the names in the “begat” part and I did not read Revelations so as not to succumb to all the “seeing signs of the end of days” and getting paranoid. If you’d like the daily schedule email me and I’ll gladly forward it. Hoodpop@yahoo.com
When I read it cover to cover I averaged about 3 chapters a night and got through it in somewhere just under a school year. (I was in high school at the time.) Can't say that every section filled me full of the light of inspiration, but it gives a good reference for more specific study if you want to go back to it later.
I have read it Cover to Cover 3 times, Plus I was raised LDS, so our Cover to Cover has a lot more between it then just the standard King James version of the Bible, and the more I read of it, the Less I believed it. I just kept seeing the symbols over and over, then when I started to learn about Astrology (which was basically the religion of the old testament, they just gave them different names than we do now.) all the Symbols started to fall into there Proper Place.
Online you can find "bible in a year" schedules that help break it down into manageable pieces. There are different types, some that lay it out chronologically, some that just go cover to cover. I kinda skipped Chronicles, though, it's like reading a phone book. Reading pieces in context really help with understanding the meaning and helps you see how much stuff some of those "thumpers" get wrong.
well, just read 3-4 verses a day and more if you want. but make a goal of 3 or 4. at least, that is what i did.
I always find it strange when people don't truly know what they believe and just go along with traditional thought. Try reading the Bible once in a while!
Amen, brother. lol. I was reading this doing, "Yeah, and if people would just pick up a Bible once in a while…"
You'd figure that wouldn't be so hard to do. As an Orthodox Christian, we read daily, and we have a calendar of readings which we are expected to hit daily. If people actually followed through on that, we wouldn't be stuck with some of the oddball stories posted on this list. Still, it's an interesting one, and the author deserves commendation for it.
Yeah, I agree. I grew up Catholic and just noticed my family and people all around me didn't really KNOW what they believed. Sure they had Bibles in their homes, but they were kept all propped up for display. No one really touched them. I just pointed out #1 to my mom and showed her the verses online(which she refused to believe and blamed 'the jews'), then I went to get the actual Bible and she just said she didn't have time to hear it.
Ignorance is Bliss I guess. For the record I no longer subscribe to any type of religion but I'm highly interested in studying them.
Jesus is a power-tripping, drinking free- loader that hangs out with sinners (Matt 9:10-13, Mark2:15-17, Luke5:29-32), I'm not a devout catholic but these verses give me the principles I live for, it shows that Jesus doesn't judge – If I judge other people, I will be judged in the same way they judge me.
Exactly – we aren't told not to judge – we are told that we must be just in our judgements.
The problem with that is just who decides what's just.
Mom, the idea here is that you decide what is just when you judge others and by extension when they judge you. It’s much like the golden rule. Hope that helped.
Good to know not all Christians are judgmental, holier-than-thou types. My grandparents and parents always taught me to accept people for who they were. If there's anything I still hold from my days as a believer, it's that.
The only one I didn't know on here was about Delilah. I had to go re-read it myself to make sure.
How dare you doubt Listverse!
I didn’t know that one either.
My family watches/participates in Jeopardy daily and yesterday I was the only person who got “A 5 letter word for food from heaven.” My mom had never heard of manna… Never. I was disappoint.
Really Good List Jamie and well presented: For Subject 5 You could have included the latter as corrobboration:
Wine: The Bible, as you correctly state. does NOT condemn the drinking of alcohol – that misconception is a holdover from Calvinistic and Purtian Prtotestantism – which worked its way into Methodism etc; What the Bible DOES say is "Be not DRUNK of the fruit of the vine" – at the same time many gainsayers will claim that the water was turned into grape juice – but the original Gospels clearly use a word which translates from the original Greek as WINE /a "fermented grape beverage".
As for money the misquote is generally "Money id the root of all evil" when in fact Peter says "LOVE of money – is the root of all evil"
Again Great list
This has always bothered me as well. Even if someone claims that (w)oinos doesn't mean wine (and Liddel-Scott-Jones provides ample evidence that it can't mean anything but wine, especially when Greek already has a word for unfermented grape juice – botria), the context of the passage makes it clear it was fermented when it mentions people having too much drink and not being able to tell the quality of what they are drinking. Only wine could do that.
True, the KJV translates it as that but it is interesting that the NIV and many other versions translates it as "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil" implying not all evils come from the love of money. I am inclined to believe this because I can think of plenty sins unrelated to the love of money. Here is a list of various translations of the verse in addition to interesting commentary http://bible.cc/1_timothy/6-10.htm
I'd like very much the nice prize
Nice list, I felt smarter just by reading it.
This was a fascinating list, and I actually did know about the one being said by Benjamin Franklin. My literature teacher made a point to tell us about that.
To be nit-picky about it, BF wrote it, but he didn’t invent it. He was editing the Aesop quote “The Gods help them that help themselves” for his monotheistic audience.
Comment about #10 list about Adam and Eve: God expelled Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden not because they ate the fruit but due to dis-obedience. =)
I would say Jamie got that one exactly, strictly correct. Anything more would be a subjective interpretation. Specific punishments were meted out to Adam and Eve (AND the serpent) but the reason for the expulsion from the garden was explicitly stated, as quoted by Jamie, to prevent Adam and Eve from partaking of the Tree of Life.
But let's further split hairs: The Garden of Eden was "in Eden":
"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden…"
Later, Adam and Even were only put out of the garden, not necessarily Eden.
"Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden…and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
I just love careful readings! Loads of fascinating, even surprising, stuff in the Bible that shows up with a more careful reading.
A man after my own heart! Careful reading is extremely useful when dealing with the Bible. And by careful I don't mean literal in every sense – let us not forget that Christ said the mustard seed was the smallest seed – which it is not – but Christ – being God can't lie so it was not meant literally but clearly was figurative.
Or, perhaps, Christ was just wrong?
Just out of curiosity, why do you say that Christ/God can't lie? I never thought about it, but I don't recall ever hearing that before.
OK, now you got me thinking. God told Abraham he had to sacrifice his son to prove his love for/faith in God. Just before Abraham actually try to kill his son, God, said, "Never mind." So, it turns out Abraham didn't have to sacrifice his son. Which means that God…lied?
Not a lie? Okay, then just the biggest head game ever.l
If I'm your computer consultant via telephone, and I tell you to do something that you think will be harmful to your system, I do it with the full knowledge that there isn't anything you could do that I couldn't undo. But if you won't follow my instructions, or trust me, then what's the point? Call someone else.
Beyond that, the "head game", if you want to call it that, would be in asking you to demonstrate to me (as opposed to simply telling me – which may be a lie) that you trust me in that capacity.
All human judgments notwithstanding, either He is God or he is not. And I find it very refreshing that I get to decide that for myself, same as you. Abraham had the freedom to respond with, "This is nonsense, I don't have time for head games."
Or, in other words, "…And ye; what say ye that I am?"
Everybody will answer for themselves. And that's a good thing.
Small point, but you are not a god, therefore, no, I do not know that you can undo anything I mess up.
The fact that you believe that you can fix it and tell me that you can fix it is not really evidence. I would have to work with you for a significant amount of time and have smaller demonstrations of your skills before I would say "its all in your hands." I would be foolish to do otherwise. Also, if you cannot explain to me in advance what and why you want me to take a particular counter-intuitive action, and perhaps more importantly, how you will fix it if it goes wrong — then yes, I am calling someone else.
I have read many, many theological interpretations of the Abraham/Isaac story, and not one of them has swayed me from my original thought — anyone who would ask me to harm my child as a show of faith is not worthy of my faith. It is the request of a brutal, cruel, narcissist — whether it is made by the Christian god or by Jim Jones.
I do not find it "refreshing" that I get to decide for myself. I am an adult, sentient human being — of course I get to decide for myself. That is the status quo. Your argument is like saying that a woman abused by her husband should be happy that she wasn't beaten last Wednesday. Is that really refreshing? If you turn your power over to another entity, and the entity is sometimes benevolent, well, I guess that could be called "refreshing" is some narrow, convoluted manner.
That aside, my question was not "why should I trust in god?" My question was, on what basis did jfrater assert that god does not lie? It was not a challenge to religious beliefs, it was a challenge for a citation. He stated it as a given, and I just wondered it that was in the Bible. As I said, whether god lies or not isn't something I had ever contemplated.
The Abraham/Isaac story is the story that turned me away from "god". I figure any "god" that is going to ask me to kill my own child to prove some kind of sick devotion to a deity that won't even bother to show himself(unless he's hiding in a burning bush), isn't really a just "god". If the Abraham/Isaac story were to occur today, Abraham would be in jail for child abuse. Just look at all the people in jail today because they killed their kids and they say "god" told them to do it.
That is an awful story, and I will never EVER believe in the "god" of the Bible.
"I do not find it "refreshing" that I get to decide for myself. I am an adult, sentient human being — of course I get to decide for myself. That is the status quo."
OK then! If you don't believe in God, then that "status quo" can be taken for granted, part in parcel with living on Earth, without a need for God. If you do believe in God, it might not be unreasonable to further assume that all such "status quo" was by design, regardless how much it might be taken for granted.
As for the Abraham/Isaac story, consider this: Human history is replete with evidence of human sacrifices to any number of so-called "gods". I don't know what kind of human sacrifices would have been required by the gods of Abraham's time, but I took the fact that Abraham so quickly and willingly obeyed (and the fact that there was ALREADY an altar!) to mean that he didn't consider human sacrifice an unusual request by any putative deity.
Enter now "The One True God" who knows this only too well, and is going to put an end to human sacrifices from Abraham and his progeny. Taking license now:
GOD: "Do the customary, and prepare a human sacrifice. But I don't want some politically unfortunate misfit offered up. Your sacrifice has to be a real sacrifice, in which case I want your son."
Now this would indeed be "counter-intuitive" if I only view it in light of my delicate, but narrowly focused 21st century sensibilities. Such a request could have made absolutely perfect sense to Abraham in his time, who had to learn A New Way in stages, growing, not from where you are in perfect hindsight, but from where Abraham was at the time.
Abraham: "Alright, Isaac is on the altar. Done."
Angel: "Good. Now take him down. Your human sacrifice is not needed. The Lord will provide."
A lesson and a test, all combined, into a ritual which was not, one could easily argue, unfamiliar to Abraham, or anyone of his time, with their multiple false gods, and all their artificially devised demands.
mlr wrote: "Small point, but you are not a god, therefore, no, I do not know that you can undo anything I mess up."
You got it exactly backwards. Go back and read carefully. I didn't say that you know that I could undo anything that you did. I said that I know this about myself. And since I am the putative computer expert, and you are not in this case (else why call), whatever seems counter-intuitive to you is absolutely irrelevant.
But, like you said, if you don't think you can trust me or my counter-intuitive (to you) instructions, you are free to disengage at any time and call someone else. It's A Beauty-Full Thing, innit?
I actually did understand what you wrote. I didn't say that I know that you can undo anything I do. That was my point.
What I said was that other than your assurances, I have no reason to have such complete confidence in you. Therefore, if you tell me to do something counter-intuitive, like to completely wipe my hard drive to fix a networking problem or murder one of my sons to show brand loyalty to Dell, I am going to question it.
That you are the random person that answered the computer helpline does not automatically confer omniscience on you. My many wasted hours on the phone with Dell and Earthlink attests to this.
That a disembodied voice told Abraham that killing his son was the way to go is in no way persuasive, especially considering pantheism. Perhaps it was Mars, the god of war, who was feeling kind of cranky that day that was speaking to him. For that matter, how did Abraham know that it wasn't Satan that was urging him to commit such an awful act?
What is counter-intuitive to me is never irrelevent. If someone advises me to do something that is opposite of what is in my mental knowledge base (experience) or violates my ethical code — they better be coming with a whole lot of evidence to back it up if they expect me to obey. However, you will have to allot an eternity to convince me that killing one of my sons is a viable action.
Just because all the other kids are sacrificing stuff doesn't mean that I am going to, as well. I'm no biblical scholar, but while there was a fair amount of goats and other other animals sacrificed to any number of gods, I don't think child sacrifice was remotely common during that time period in that part of the world. I don't think your historical relativism argument is sound. If it wasn't that big of a deal, why would Abraham be so anguished by it?
You have twice now referenced the concept of free will, if in an oblique fashion. The notion that if I don't like it, I can walk away. I agree. But I argue that once you turn your thought process over to a god (or anyone, for that matter), you are giving up your free will, and in some cases, your ability to walk away. It is only through giving up your free will that you are able to do something that is in direct violation of your ethical code or nature and still live with yourself. For example, I killed my son, but it was god's decision and responsibility, not mine.
Very VERY good post…thank you.
It is not a head game at all, but to show us what God went through as He was going to die on the cross as an offering and ransom for each of us.
God has feelings too. knowing the He (as Jesus) was going to be sacrificed for our sins.
Abraham proved himself completely faithful by doing this. God needed a man to do be completely faithful with total trust in God.
after this ended, Abraham knew what God was going to go through on the cross, and likewise God was assured that Abraham was going to have the fortitude to do what God needed him to do.
Like a general in the army has to know who he can trust and count on that person completely to carry out the plan.
It was also a message for us today for all who would be known as a Christian that we are going to have to sacrifice things in the earthly realm, to be able to receive much greater things in the spiritual realm.
remember, God never intended for Abraham to kill his son. It was a test of FAITH. A tough test yes, but necessary for Gods plan to materialize.
More than just a head game. But you have to know and understand the history of God and Abraham to understand the point, and why Abraham was willing to offer Isaac. God always operates on the principle of faith and according to His promises.
Abraham had already seen God’s intervention when he had to rescue his nephew Lot, and again when God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
And God had repeatedly promised Abraham that he would have a son and his descendants would be innumerable. In fact, his birth name was actually Abram (lofty father) but God renamed him (father of many nations) to reiterate His promise (and help grow Abraham’s faith). This was even though he was 99 years old and Sarah his wife was 90 before Isaac was born.
So when God told Abraham to offer up Isaac (whose name means laughter, btw) as a burnt sacrifice, Isaac was still a kid; unmarried and childless. So to kill and burn Isaac and yet still be the fulfillment of the promise of descendants, Abraham reasoned God would have to be able to raise the dead.
So Abraham even said to his servants when he took Isaac alone, “Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.”
Having a man believe God was going to raise someone from the dead gave God the venue through which to perform it (since God had delegated authority over the earth to man). Abraham even said, “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering…” and it was a ram which God gave to Abraham to sacrifice that day.
Titus 1:2 – In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the world began.
I’m guessing _that’s_ were he got the idea the God cannot lie.
I agree. I read it carefully. But there is a verse in a bible that God said everything you can do and eat except you cannot eat the fruit of life. Then Eve and Adam ate it so what did you call that one? Is it dis-obedience?
God loved Adam and Eve but God taketh away the things that Adam and Eve can do before.
ArjayM: "God loved Adam and Eve, but God taketh away…"
Which implies an artificial condition imposed on both God and love (i.e., if He really loved, He wouldn't ______ [fill in the blank with a human condition of your choosing]) — as if that, in fact, defined love.
Arjay, you weren't incorrect. In a broad sense, everything God did with Adam, Eve and the serpent at that time branched out as consequences of, and was causally rooted in, individual disobedience. Each consequence, however, was for a specifically stated reason, which was the point that was originally made here. The fact that each consequence could be lumped into a general thing called "a denial of what was previously enjoyed, but now is no longer permitted", or "punishment stemming from disobedience" tells us nothing about why each consequence was given.
I also had another quick comment about this item. I don't want to pretend I know God's mindset at this point in Biblical history, but the comment "God does not like competition" is a bit belittling to God (that is a very human projection onto a very non-human God).
It is generally accepted and thought that the reason God did not permit Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Life is that through their disobedience they brought sin and evil into the world. This means sickness, pain, death, etc.–which never existed before–were introduced. Eating from the Tree of Life would remove death from the equation, therefore causing humans to live forever in a now sinful, painful, sorrowful world. God was saving them from this.
That may also be a slightly subjective interpretation, but based on everything I have learned about Genesis that is the most accepted application.
I agree with you. Without adam and eve, we're not here.
Which, of course, leads to the question of why God would even create the two forbidden trees, let alone place them in the garden. Imagine a similar scenario in a sci-fi world where the good guys are in charge. They build a "self-destruct" button for their empire, and place it in an unguarded public area, trusting that the "do not push" sign above it will keep them safe. Would that make any sense? Of course not, but when believers read that story in the Bible, they think it makes perfect sense. *sigh*
The function of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was simply to offer Adam and Eve a choice. That is, give them the opportunity to disobey God and thus exert their free will. Thus, the Tree is much more like an unlocked door out of the house than a "self-destruct" button.
If God had not created some means of divergence, then Adam and Eve would have ultimately been forced into a loving relationship without real substance. The only truly loving relationship is one in which both parties willingly come to each other. Without the tree (or some other kind of functional device), Adam and Eve had no real opportunity to exert their free will and choose something other than God.
Regardless, would Jfrater care to either amend or add a citation to prove his point that Jesus/God cannot lie. Is there in fact any such quote in the bible?
Yes, there are such quotes. The Bible is chock full of references to how much God hates lying, which I could easily extrapolate as a projection of a defining characteristic for God, but there also specific passages which say that He cannot/will not lie, or that it is impossible for Him to lie. Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2 for starters.
Cool, thank you for answering my original question. As I had said, that is something I had never contemplated, so I was looking for some citations. Yours were perfect.
The “Tree of Life” was not initially forbidden, only the “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. Also, it was the Tree of life that was in the midst of the garden, not the other tree (Eve got that wrong). When Satan tempted Eve he never pointed out that “knowing good and evil” didn’t mean they would “know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good” (Isaiah 7:15)
As far as it “making perfect sense”, I can’t pretend to understand it. But then God says “For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9). It cannot be understood by human intellect, only accepted in faith.
Good list apart from the “Rapture” one, which was wrong, as has been pointed out. This is from a Greek/English interlinear bible courtesy of olivetree.com: “arpaghsomeqa (5691) {SHALL BE CAUGHT AWAY}” 1 Thess 4:17. I long for that moment when the Lord Himself will come for all His own, myself included!
Yep, that's correct. It is just like a Father and Son relationship.
I thought "wine" back in the day was just grape juice, not alcoholic wine? Don't remember where I heard that though.
Nice list
Noah got drunk on wine. Paul says do not get drunk on wine. Doesn’t make much sense if they werent alcoholic…
Nope – there is a different word for low-alcoholic wine (there was never non-alcoholic wine in the ancient times). These days the low alcoholic wine used in Mass is call "must" but it still contains a small percentage of alcohol.
What part of NZ are you in? I am in Wellington – it is always nice to see another kiwi here.
Shaky Christchurch! Good on you for creating such an awesome site. Been a reader for several years.
Me too I thought they drank their wine diluted with water. Or was it just the romans that did that?
Most wine at that time was thick. Cutting it with water kept the water safe to drink and made the wine less viscuous.
I usually reply to zealots, "So, if the wine wasn't alcoholic, how did they make vinegar?' Usually just drives them to greater phrenzy.
@Item #4. The source may be even older: there is a resistance song from the Dutch war of Independance (1568-1648) that goes (in translation): "Now help thyself, so God will help thee get free from the tyrants' chains"
What a poorly written list.. the fact’s not right, not even a funny list. Pssh !
Do you own a bible? If so you can confirm the claims made in this list.
Ok, let’s go through the list point by point.
10. Yes, God does say he’s kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden lest they take of the tree of life and live forever. It’s also clear that the reason God came down in judgment in the first place was that they took of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It seems obvious that by disobediently eating of that tree, they lost their right to eat of the tree of life and, hence, were kicked out of God’s presence. A straightforward reading of Genesis 3 refutes point 10. And since popular belief never says Adam and Eve were kicked out because they ate from the first tree AND NOT because God wished to prevent their eating from the second, popular belief scores a point. Score: Author 0, Popular Belief 1
9. Yes, the book of Jonah refers to “a large fish”. Ancient Hebrew did not have a word for whale. Nor did ancient Hebrew use identical taxonomical classifications to those in current use. (Herman Melville, by the way, spent a few paragraphs in chapter 32 “Cetology” of _Moby Dick_ arguing that the whale is a type of fish.) So while the phrase “a large fish” does not decisively refer to a whale, it does not preclude that possibility. No points to the list author for claiming the possibility was precluded. No points to popular belief for thinking a whale is referred to specifically. The score remains unchanged. Score: Author 0, Popular Belief 1
8. Yes, it was one of Delilah’s servants who cut Samson’s hair. Delilah didn’t do it herself. I wasn’t aware of a popular belief that says she did. So unless someone wants to give me citations proving that the list author is right in calling this a “common misconception”, I’m just going to award no points to anyone. Score: Author 0, Popular Belief 1
7. The fact that the Greek word translated “rapture” is only applied to a single New Testament person has nothing to do with whether the Bible teaches the concept referred to by the term “The Rapture”. So the list author gets zero points. The only question is whether popular belief should be awarded any points. My own understanding is that belief in “The Rapture” (as an event distinct from and prior to The Second Coming and Last Judgment) results from a misunderstanding of the Biblical texts. However, those who hold to a Rapture view can certainly point to the texts they believe are speaking of it. And they can offer an intelligible interpretation thereof. So this isn’t a simple matter of pointing out that they say A, but anyone reading the Bible will see that it says B. So I’m giving a point to popular belief, even though I think it has misinterpreted the evidence. It’s also worth noting that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Reformed, Lutherans, and many others do not believe the Bible teaches “The Rapture”. So listing it as one of those facts EVERYONE gets wrong is a bit much. I’m almost tempted to dock the author a point rather than simply giving him zero. But I’ll leave it alone. Score: Author 0, Popular Belief 2
6. Finally, the list author gets a point! Yes, it’s a common misconception that there were exactly three “wise men”. (The translation “wise men” is also debatable.) And it’s a further misconception that places them at the manger scene rather than recognizing that they showed up later. I recall maybe 25 years ago watching some game show where the contestant was presented with a list and asked to say whether each item would have been present at the Biblical manger scene. E.g. “Mary” “Yes”, “Little Drummer Boy” “No”. When the emcee read out “Wise Men”, the contestant said “Yes”. I waited for the zonk and instead heard the ding ding ding. That definitely qualifies this as a fact that “everyone” gets wrong. The author is still behind but has at least scored his first point. Score: Author 1, Popular Belief 2
5. True, the Bible does not condemn the drinking of alcohol. So the list author gets a point. I could try to give a point to popular belief using the same reasoning as I did regarding “rapture”. I.e. they’re wrong but it’s complicated. But it really isn’t. So no points for popular belief. It looks like the list author is about to tie up the score … but wait! He keeps writing! He says, “The Bible does NOT condemn the drinking of alcohol – that misconception is a holdover from Calvinistic and Purtanical Prtotestantism – which worked its way into Methodism etc.” Bzzzt. John Calvin drank alcohol and didn’t forbid it. (His annual salary in Geneva included 7 barrels of wine.) The Calvinists drank alcohol and didn’t forbid it. The Puritans drank alcohol and didn’t forbid it. The Pilgrims brought over 7,500 gallons of alcohol which they used for “virtually all functions, including ordinations, funerals, and regular Sabbath meals.” ORDINATIONS!!!!!! The Protestants (ESPECIALLY the Lutherans) and even the Anabaptists during the Reformation enjoyed alcohol. All these groups thought of alcohol in moderation as a gift from God. Methodism, exactly contrary to what the author alleges, did not get its anti-alcohol stance from Calvinism, Protestantism, and Puritanism, but took that stance in opposition to those traditions. For such a major error on the author’s part, I am taking away the point that was awarded earlier in this paragraph. So the score remains unchanged. Score: Author 1, Popular Belief 2
4. Yes, “God helps those who help themselves” isn’t in the Bible. I suppose many people believe it is, though I think one is more likely to find someone refuting that belief than holding to it. Still… point for author? Well, again, he keeps writing. He says the originator of the saying “was Benjamin Franklin in his Poor Richard’s almanac. Sorry, but Aesop predates Franklin by over two millennia. His tale of “Hercules and the Wagoner” ends with essentially that moral: “Help yourself and the gods will help you.” If that’s not close enough, the exact English wording “God helps those who help themselves” appears in Algernon Sidney’s “Discourses Concerning Government” in 1698, 38 years before Franklin published the saying in Poor Richard’s Almanack, indeed eight years before Franklin was even born. The most one can say is that it is through Franklin’s book that another person’s particular phrasing of an ancient idea became rooted in the public consciousness. A true fact followed by misinformation in support of it. I guess I’ll give the author half a point. Score: Author 1.5, Popular Belief 2
3. I don’t understand the author’s point here. Yes, God’s answer to “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is implied rather than stated. Yes, the answer is exactly what you would expect and what the author suggests. No, I’m not aware of a popular misconception that the Bible says God replied, “Why, yes, as a matter of fact, you are.” So how do we deal with the points? The list author’s statements under this point are correct. But including this under “facts that everyone gets wrong” is simply incorrect. On the other hand, if I ask the person on the street whether God answered Cain’s question, I doubt most people would know. I’m not going to take points away from popular belief on the basis of that speculation, but I’m not awarding any either. I’m tempted to take a point from the author for claiming everyone gets this wrong. But on balance, I’ll just call it a wash. We’ll treat this as though point 3 doesn’t exist and this is a Top 9 list. Score: Author 1.5, Popular Belief 2
2. Yeah, it’s popular to depict Mary riding to Bethlehem on a donkey. No, the Bible doesn’t specify that. Yeah, most people probably think it does. Point for author. The list author finally pulls ahead with only one entry left to judge. The suspense is killing me. Score: Author 2.5, Popular Belief 2
1. Ok, let’s make sure I understand what’s being said. The fact that everyone gets wrong is this: The depiction of Moses with horns is based on a mistranslation of the Bible. Everyone thinks that and everyone’s wrong (according to the list author). In fact, the author alleges, in the Bible “Moses really is described as being horned.” No, actually, he’s not. He’s described by the Qal form of the verb qaran which means “to shoot out rays”. It is certainly related to the noun qeren which means “horn”. And the same verb in the Hiphil (which ISN’T used to describe Moses) means “to display or grow horns” or “to be fully developed.” In the 4th century AD, the Latin Vulgate mistakenly translated the word as “horned”. Popular belief is correct. Score one for it. The author claims “In Old Testament times, a person who was believed to have seen or been touched by God was described as having horns (or rays of light) coming from their head. It was an ancient symbol much like today’s gloriole.” This is false. The verb qaran is used only 3 times in the Old Testament. All three are in the passage we’re discussing–Exodus 34. All three times, the verb is in the Qal and thus means, as we said, “to shoot out rays”. But even if we say it means “to display horns”, Moses is the only Biblical individual of which this is ever predicated. The noun form–qeren, “horn”–is never used to describe a person’s appearance, whether literally or figuratively. If the author can point to extra-Biblical texts that describe this aspect of Old Testament thought, I’m sure the world of scholarship would be very interested. In the absence of that, the author loses a point (at least!). This entry is completely false.
FINAL SCORE: Author 1.5, Popular Belief 3
That means that if you started reading this list holding to all the popular beliefs, and finished it by believing what the author tells you instead, you have decreased the sum total of your knowledge.
I has assburgers but agree wit u
You are wrong. Go and look this stuff up. The list is correct. Not all the Listverse is about being funny.
Let us say, you didn't read a bible, isn't it?
A poorly written and poorly expressed comment.
I also hear a lot of Shakespeare quoted by people who mistakenly think they're thumping out wisdom from the Bible (e.g., "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", and "To thine own self be true" – both from Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3).
The obvious similarity between King James' and Elizabethan English could be the source of confusion there.
ah yes, and “The quality of mercy is not strain’d, // It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven // Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: // It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”
Portia, The Merchant Of Venice Act 4, scene 1, 180–187
Good list! Blame all those misconceptions on ill trained Sunday school teachers, that's where most of those memories lie! So in the olden days, did they know that whales are not fish?
My thought too. After all, the Bible says that bats are birds.
Actually the hebrew word translated to bird could just as well mean flying being. ancient people usually didn't have the same categories as we do today. The israelites probably didn't do many distinctions between sea creatures, as they weren't a seafaring people, but rather feared the ocean.
Nice list! Im always interested in lists relating to the Bible.
About #9.. it MAY have been a whale. they probably didn't know that a whale isn't a fish back then. They probably didn't even know what a Mammal is.. so anything that looks like a fish, was called a fish.
Solid.
Nice list! Im always interested in lists relating to the Bible.
About #9.. it MAY have been a whale. they probably didn't know that a whale isn't a fish back then. They probably didn't even know what a Mammal is.. so anything that looks like a fish, was called a fish.
**sorry for repeat post..
Except most whales (none that I know of) have throats large enough to swallow a man.
There is one fish that is a true fish yet looks very much like a whale — the whale shark. It has a mouth wide enough to enclose a human and would have been known to Middle Easterners, presumably.
I went to Catholic school for 8 years and I'm surprised that I haven't heard anything about this. Interesting list haha.
you have to remember that people that teach religion actually know very little about it
The majority of these things are NOT true…trust me, I know a lot more on theology than the person who wrote this. He doesn’t even sound as though he read the Bible in its entirety.
For example, God does not like people to “compete” with Him (hence why Satan was kicked out although the very thought of it is ludicrous since God is Almighty) but the reason as to why Adam and Eve got kicked out of the garden is WRONG. There are numerous books in the Bible that explained the reason as to why Adam was kicked out and it was BECAUSE OF SIN – their disobedience. And because of that sin they cannot dwell in the presence of God since He is holy. And in order to correct that He sent Jesus who is otherwise known as the 2nd Adam.
This person need to study his Bible some more because these things are dreadfully wrong, if not wrong its the half truth or inaccurate.
HORRIBLE ARTICLE.
where does it say that Jesus is the 2nd Adam? and how can you say he didn’t do his homework?
show me scripture that denies what has been said. I believe that the writer has done an adequate job on this list and you most likely need to study up some more, and NONE of this was dreadfully wrong.
It's really interesting to see how different branches of christianity believe different things they read from the same book.
You took the words right out of my brain
I don’t think I ever knew about the tree of life part. I thought they just got the boot for getting their apple on.
Another misconception. The fruit was never specified, I think I've heard it was more likely a pomegranate.
Another misconception, as no physical description of the fruit or the tree is ever given. I contend that since the tree was unique, the fruit would also have been unique (i.e., not something that would still exist on this planet).
Pom juice claims pomegranate, which is likely completely made up.
More importantly, the punishment for eating the fruit of the tree was that they'd be mortal. Hence, they were no longer allowed to eat the fruit of the tree of life. So technically, your original assumptions were correct, they were kicked out because they ate the fruit of the tree of good and evil.
even though there isn’t a physical description I think it should look like a grenade, because they both have catastrophic effects.
It says nothing at all about what kind of fruit, except that the tree was “pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise” (Gen 3:6). Hey, I always thought it said that about the fruit… guess I learned something new too!
Does this count as a comment?
Great list. Made my day.
im just curious…but how is is that you wound up with a -53p my good sir?
It was probably from when he called Nazis as 'fallen heroes'.
Yes most probably that. Just like wikileaks people hate me for being real. I am not afraid to say who i am. Nazi yes. I also deny the Holocaust happened and if it did, good riddance. I am also a 12 yr old kid who is afraid to venture out of my parents home. I spend most of my time online watching *****. Everyone hates me.
As he post from behind a "screen name"………
exactly and also while jerking off to some weird Japanese hentai
I hope I win
interesting.
Next time I get pestered by a street side preacher to repent before the Rapture, I can remind him that the Rapture was never in the Bible and was made up by some witch-fearing goon.
By the way, I'm also a Christian. I just hate it when I'm trying to go somewhere and one of these preachers keeps trying to stop me.
Not quite right. The word "rapture" isn't in the Bible (neither is "Trinity" for that matter) but the concept is taught in many different passages.
Perhaps you should thank him instead. He has enough conviction to go out and tell people about what he believes. And if he truly believes what he preaches, then he is only trying to save you from an eternity of hell-fire. It is admirable since most people keep things like that to themselves for fear of upsetting people. That man actually cares.
yes it could mean that he cares… or it could mean that he is a lunatic who is afraid of his own shadow….
The Bible is a very interesting book! Great list!
wonderful list! although i have to say that i knew about number one already
i would love to be the one to wind up with that bible though!!!
And you were! Congratulations!
Thank you sir! An honor indeed!
So, horned Moses, horned devil…anyone see a new misconception coming up?
How do you know the devil is horned?
Always assumed he had from all those nasty pics o his…Well if he doesn't, then theres another misconception laid to rest that should've made the list.
Actual the bible says lucifer was the most beautiful angel
Enter your comment here.
In fact lucifer is so beautiful that why many will be led astray by him via temptations, etc. So that person thats the life of the party yet encourages people to give in to temptaion,look,watch and see their real life living. Another thing people do not and it is/has been a translation error for many generations. When Jesus is on the the cross and the one thief ask him to remember him! The answer we have been taught “I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise” Actually it shoud read” I tell you today,(COMMA) your be with me in paradise” Otherwise, Jesus could not have covered out sins as he had to present himself as a burnt offering in hell 3 days. If he went straight to heaven, then salvation is not there! Also another debate people have did God create Heavens and earth in 6 days then rested on 7th.(What was growing?-nothing) Later, GOD caused a HEAVY MIST to fall upon the ground and thus then things started growing.
Misconception: WHO guarded Jesus”s tomb? WAS not ROMAN soldiers-remember AFTER JESUS had been in grave one day (AS day before was a SABBATH called PASSOVER. Then High Priest, etc went to pilot and asked that he put a guard to guard lest disciples come steal his body. PILOT replies “YOU have a GUARD you secure it as best as you can. These were temple guards not ROMANS. Also on the day they began guarding the tomb. Mary and women went to buy supplies by which to prepare His body, then It was that regular sabbath(another day of rest and NO work) finally before sunrise they went to the tomb to properly prepare HIS body. I once read a very stupid and laughable book where the “HITLER” was trying to say that Jesus was not killed but rather drugged to fake an early death. They took HIM down place in tomb then somehow got his body and had Jesus to appear to various peoples. One problem-you cannot walk on feet that have had nails in them, next you would die if not already when sword/knife was stuck thru his side and blood/water ran separate.They stuck him in the LIVER-you ain’t surviving that either.
I would think one of the facts that most people get wrong were that Adam and Eve were tempted by a snake, when it was only mentioned as a "serpent".
Huh? Serpent is a kind of snake yeah?
The word from the verse, nahash, is one of many Hebrew words commonly translated into English as "serpent" in the Hebrew Bible. It would be more accurate to translate that word as "snake" than "serpent".
A bigger misconception from the Adam and Eve story is that they ate an apple. The Bible never mentions what type of fruit they ate. Since it was from a unique, special tree, I think it would be reasonable to say that it is not a type of fruit that exists in the modern world (if it existed at all, which I doubt).
I read somewhere that modern biblical scholars think that it was a pomegranate. I can't confirm that though.
I’ve heard that some scholars think it might have been a pear.
I guess we’ll find out when we get to heaven.
great list! especially liked the one about the rapture, so many people don't know about that!
interesting list
The author does has done some great research! A very interesting read.
Very surprising list indeed.
Since you mention those who believe that only what is in the Bible is true (and we should refrain from any behaviour which isn't mentioned): I haven't been able to find a passage in either testament about anyone going to the bathroom. Should that be forbidden then?
There is a big difference between omission and prohibition, my friend.
Deuteronomy 23:12-14
12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. 14 For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.
Thanks for that reference. I knew it was in there somewhere but couldn't remember just where. It's one of those things that 14-16 year-olds find to be extremely important/amusing in an early morning bible class.