Were the plagues on Pharaoh because of Abram and Sarai unfair?

Plagues! Boils! Torture! Ice cream! Which one of these things is not like the other?

Sorry, I was looking at that tasty Ninja Turtle specimen from my last post and just had to find a way to fit ice cream into this blog entry as well. Carrying on, today we have yet another relevant newsletter from Answers in Genesis. This time, it's about Egypt and all that fun stuff we read about in Genesis. And you know how much I love talking about morality!

Abraham was married to his half-sister, Sarai, who, at age sixty-five, was still apparently beautiful.

I guess I can let that slide. I mean, if she's smokin' hot and still single at sixty-five then I won't hold half-incest against a brotha.

To protect himself, Abraham persuaded Sarah to lie about her marriage to him and pretend to be his sister.

Now the passage describes the rationale here being, "If I say she's my wife then he's going to kill me and take her for himself." Which is a huge compliment to her since, again, she's rockin' it out at 65 years old. This might be a reaction I would have if I could possibly be killed. Or perhaps I'd just say to Pharaoh, "this is my wife, but if you want her, take her." That way I could not lie and stay alive and acquire servants! This isn't exactly the kind of reaction I'd expect from a man who had supposedly talked to God, though. I mean, if I knew I had a universal superpower behind me that wouldn't let me die I'd probably just grab Pharaoh by the balls and tell him to give me some grain or else.

Somewhat ironic, really, how everyone in the bible who supposedly either talked to Yahweh or witnessed acts that could only have possibly been caused by him seem to still have quite shaky faith. And yet, thousands of years later, I'm chided for being an atheist because there is an "abundance" of evidence? It's almost comical, really.

Unprotected by her husband, Sarah was whisked off to Pharaoh’s harem. In exchange, Pharaoh showered Abraham with riches. Since Abraham didn’t properly protect Sarah, who was the promised mother of a new nation that would bless the whole world, God had to step in.

Well, he didn't have to, necessarily. At least, he didn't have to start right off with violence.  But who am I kidding? That's Yahweh's favorite pastime! He loves this sort of thing. If I were Yahweh, I'd probably just come down to Abraham and give him the "grab-by-the-balls" advice again. But clearly, that's much less fun.

God protected Sarah by sending “great plagues” on Pharaoh and his house.

Hmmm... I...

DOES NOT COMPUTE

The Hebrew words translated as “plagues” can refer to sores or wounds and does not require them to be deadly.

Yeah, but knowing Yahweh, they probably were. Just sayin'.

Sarah was kept safe and it seems Pharaoh eventually put two and two together and figured out that the timing and scope of this disease was somehow associated with Abraham’s arrival and that Sarah was Abraham’s wife.

Yeah, just like the destruction of the twin towers were judgments on the gays and the Japanese tsunamis were judgments on the atheists! It's all so crystal clear!

Pharaoh graciously let Abraham keep all the stuff he had acquired in Egypt and summarily sent him away.

Not, I'm sure, until Abraham grabbed him by the balls and demanded that he get to take his stuff with him. Cuz that's how he rolls now.

These plagues on Pharaoh and his house were not so much a punishment as a message, but they are definitely an example of the sins of one person causing others to suffer.

My punching your face repeatedly isn't so much a punishment for your not smiling at me, but rather a message, letting you know that customer service is always important and you won't be getting my business next time unless you ask me how my day was. It's just an example of the wrongs of one person causing... actually, just you to suffer. Really, that's almost more moral, in a way. My punching you, that is. (Metaphorically, of course. I'd never punch you. I actually like you a lot!) After all, I didn't punch your manager or that guy who sits across the room from you. Nope. I only took it out on you.

But God had a different idea, apparently. "PLAGUE THEM ALL! MUAHAHAHA..." Or at least, that's how I imagined it went down. There can't have been that many scenarios since, after all, all that really happened was that Pharaoh took what he thought was a beautiful unmarried woman.

Our cursed world is full of examples of innocents suffering for the sins of others. Drunk drivers, abusive parents, pregnant women on cocaine, thieves, rapists, and murderers are but a few examples of people who cause the innocent to suffer. At least in this case, the suffering was apparently non-lethal and had a clearly-defined purpose.

And all of the examples given are people suffering because of things out of their control. A good driver couldn't anticipate that drunk person coming around the corner at 60 miles/hr in the wrong lane. A rape victim can't always escape her captor and a sleeping person may not wake up until the thieves have come and gone. However, in this biblical scenario, Yahweh would theoretically be in complete control of the situation. It would be completely unnecessary for innocents to suffer for the sins of others. Unless, of course, he wanted it to.

And obviously in this story, he did. Which is especially evil, since the only person who could theoretically be at fault here was Abraham. But did God punish him? Not according to the passage. He never got so much as a verbal reprimand. But Pharaoh and who knows else were inflicted with "serious diseases" without a legitimate explanation. AiG hasn't explained this at all but have merely attempted to lessen the moral judgment on Yahweh.

I mean, look at their last sentence. They say "at least" as if they realize that this was a totally immoral and uncalled for action on their god's part but are saying, "Hey, it could have been worse!" Which, I suppose, is true. But also totally irrelevant. Just try that in court, if you're ever in front of a jury. "Yeah, I killed a man in Reno just to watch him die. But hey, at least I didn't kill two people, amirite?" The 'at least' excuse is somewhat clever, but it will only last until the Canaanites. Or Amalekites, I forget which people groups were slaughtered first.

So what's the moral of the story? That Yahweh doesn't have any. But wait, we already knew that!

How can AiG defend the Christian faith in today’s world?

In honor of the Easter holiday, I present you another long-awaited blog post! This is almost as exciting as the time I fought that kid for the last Ninja Turtles bar at the ice cream truck. I totally won, by the way. No one gets between me and my sugary snacks.

More relevantly to this entry, Answers in Genesis (my favorite Christian organization for many reasons) has graced my email inbox with yet another answersweekly newsletter - to which I will gracefully respond point-by-point. You're welcome to watch the video, but it is difficult to to me to do a text response to a verbal monologue, so I'll just tackle the outline. That's all that's really necessary anyway. So here it is: How to Defend the Christian Faith in Today's World.

1

The issue of origins is different to that of developing our technology. When we are discussing origins, we are trying to understand what happened in the past to bring the present into being. When we are developing technology, we are gaining knowledge through our five senses (based on the repeatable test).

Common creationist misconception - that evolution and things that happened throughout history do not still occur today. If creationists think that evolution was supposed to have stopped happening thousands or millions of years ago then that viewpoint might make more sense. It wouldn't mean that we couldn't learn anything about the past, but I might at least see where they're coming from. But that's not how it works. Evolution is still occurring today and we've documented it happening many times both in the lab and in nature. We don't have much reason to think that modern processes that change biological organisms worked vastly differently in the past. I'll say more about this in point 5.

2

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence when it comes to the topic of origins. The battle is not the evidence as such, but how one interprets the evidence of the present in relation to the past.

It's not just a matter of interpretation. If it was, we wouldn't expect such a solid consensus on any scientific matter. I can help creationists with one piece of 'evidence' right off the bat though - religious books don't count as evidence. We don't think that man was formed from a clot of blood (says Islam) for the same reason we don't think the world is less than 10,000 years old (says the bible). Belief that a book is infallible sort of skews the 'evidence,' don't you think?

3

Ultimately, there are only two starting points to develop a way of thinking about the universe—God’s Word or Man’s word.

4

The two starting points result in two different ways of thinking and thus differing interpretations of the same evidence in relation to the past

Ultimately, there are thousands of starting points to develop a way of thinking about the universe - Mike's word, Jenny's word, the word of ignorant sheepherders from thousands of years ago, credible scientists who actually know what they're talking about, etc. Instead of relying on other people to form our opinions, why can't we start with logic and reason?

5

The word “science” basically means “knowledge.” We can gain knowledge by observation, which is called operational (observational) science. We can talk about knowledge concerning the past and origins, which is called historical science. Most people don’t understand the difference between historical and operational science. Secularists tend to mix the two together and call it “science,” which is why so many people are easily led astray concerning the truth about origins.

It seems that only creationists make the distinction between historical and operational science. As I've already explained, it doesn't change the way we do science or observe things happening - just the timescale involved. If creationists want to imply that something is much more questionable because  it happened a long time ago without credible eyewitness accounts, let's talk about the bible.

And, as a side note, these 'secularists' they reference consist of atheists, deists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, and all sorts of other religions. We like to just call them scientists.

6

Romans 1:20 is an “intelligent design” verse, but the intelligent design movement is not a Christian movement.

For reference, Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Obviously, not everyone agrees that a god exists, that he is eternal, that he is divine (supremely good), or what it even means to use the term 'God.' Obviously, many people like to use the idea of a god to explain mysterious phenomena or things they just don't understand. But I can be no more responsible to believe in a supernatural being because a world exists any more than I can a leprechaun because I found a pot of gold in my backyard yesterday. (I didn't actually, though I certainly would welcome it while remaining an aleprechaunist.)

As for the claim that the ID movement isn't Christian... well, that's an outright lie. Literally all of the members of the Discovery Institute say that the nameless designer is the Christian god. Moreover, in the well-known Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial it was quite clearly ruled that

 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (Source)

A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (Source)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (Source)

I'm not sure what kind of stunt they're trying to pull by differentiating themselves from the IDers and vice versa.

7

Christians have been by and large indoctrinated to believe there is a “neutral” position when arguing about origins, Christian morality, etc. Many have given up their starting point, thus allowing the starting point of Man’s word to overpower the culture.

"Christians have been by and large indoctrinated." I'll just put the period there for maximum truth-factor. The 'neutral' position when discussing origins, morality, or whatever is the position that evidence decides the correct viewpoints and that open-mindedness is a virtue - not the devil's tool.

8

There is no “neutral” position, and Christians need to once again stand boldly and uncompromisingly on God’s Word. Christians need to honor God’s Word—“Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17).

I'm reminded of the parable about the man who built the foundation of his house on the sand. He was happy for a while. I'm not sure why it's so much easier to build on sand than rock, but... whatever. One day a storm came and washed the sand away and the sand man had nowhere to live. Meanwhile the dude who built his house on the rocks was living the high life and probably throwing a party when that storm blew by. At any rate, the point is that if you have a crappy foundation, you're bound to lose it at some point. And I think most rational people would agree that basing beliefs about the way our world works on the writings of ignorant religious men who lived thousands of years ago is a pretty bad place to start. I can't help but think that every time a new scientific discovery comes along and delivers yet another blow to creationism, they keep rebuilding the same house on the same pile of sand.

9

Christians will continue to lose ground regarding the creation vs. evolution issue in schools, Bible in schools, Christian symbols in public places, abortion issue, Gay Marriage issue, and so on—unless they stop trying to act “neutral” and begin to stand for biblical authority.

As far as I'm aware, there is no real creation vs. evolution debate in science - you're allowed to bring a bible to school, you can erect any kind of Christian symbol you like on your person or your property, and gay marriages are illegal in most parts of the US. They seem to have it mostly their way as it is. The reason they're losing ground on most of these issues is that people are starting to realize that we don't have to run this nation as though it were a theocracy. This is our country, not Answers in Genesis', and we want to live in a world where we don't have to put up with outdated religious oppression. While they're standing for biblical authority, I'll stand for secular humanism and the teaching of science over religious dogma (see 4.6).

10

The collapse of the Christian worldview in our Western world is related to the fact that the cultures have changed starting points—from God’s Word to Man’s word—and become more consistent in building their worldview on man’s fallible word.

...they say unironically, having the same fallible brain that believes that their particular not-special holy book is the one infallible word of a truthful god.

11

The Bible makes it clear that hearts and mind change cultures, but many Christians have spent millions of dollars trying to change the culture, which is not working.

And if they spent less money on their extravagant megachurches, pastors, and theme parks and more on food, education, and homes for poor and starving men, women, and children both in the US and abroad, then we'd all be better off.

12

Christians have by and large allowed the world to capture the hearts and minds of generations of the kids, and they need to be taken back and given the right foundation of God’s Word.

And what a great thing! I really am sick of the indoctrination that kids get both at places like Jesus Camp and generally at home and at church. The problem is that they're not taught to question the religious teachings they're brought up with. It is extremely difficult for most individuals to grow up in a church that teaches that everyone who isn't a part of their religion is a bad person and will be punished for their ways. When they're taught that extraordinary claims in their faith don't need evidence to be believed, they won't stop believing when they find evidence to the contrary. Kids need to be given the right foundation of open-minded rational thinking and if that brings them to religious faith then so be it. But let it be their choice - not their parents'.

And with that, I conclude the always-slightly-too-long AiG response with a bonus picture for those who stayed and read all the way to the end. You're the best!

Does Ken Ham commit logical fallacies?

More Answers in Genesis newsletter fun! Today, we are posed with the question, "Does Ken Ham commit logical fallacies?" And the answer is, "of course he does!" But we already knew that. We've known it for a long time. We've always known it about all modern creationists. Here's the quote in question.

. . . in Ken Ham's lectures I question some of his logic. . . . Ken says,

"If there was a global flood, we would expect to find dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth, and we do find dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth. The evidence is crying out to us that there was a global flood."

. . . doesn't Ken's reasoning represent examples of the logical fallacies: affirming the consequent and reification?

Sometimes it's easier save your breath when fighting a losing battle and simply start moving the goalposts.

It is important to consider the fact that Ken Ham was not debating but lecturing.

Ooooooh, got it. It's ok to commit logical fallacies if you're lecturing. I mean, we wouldn't want those pastors to lose their jobs either!

When lecturing, people tend to use various methods of communication to get their points across and make the audience think about what is being said.

Various methods like logical fallacies, obviously.

In an official debate, the debaters make formal statements, but in a lecture-type setting, we can expect communication devices like rhetorical questions, allegories, and even reification.

And affirming the consequent. And appeals to authority. And appeals to popularity. And on, and on.

The key item we need to recognize when applying these logical fallacies in the real world is that they are mainly applied in formal debates and formal writing. Moreover, if we applied these fallacies like reification to everyday language, we would see people making many “logical fallacies,” and communication would become boring and dull.

It's funny how you focus so much on reification in place of the more glaring affirming the consequent Instead of simply waving away the logical fallacies espoused, perhaps you could actually put forth evidence for things like a global flood. Explain how creationism predicts finding animals at specific rock layers that correspond to ages of the earth that coincidentally match stages in evolutionary development. Explain how your global flood hypothesis is immune to geochemistry, paleontology, or geochronology. Explain where all the water came from and where it went, because you haven't done one of these things yet.

Nonetheless, we should still avoid allegorical or poetic language when making concluding statements about debatable topics—just to make sure we are clearly explaining our point.

Tell that to your god.

Some Common Misconceptions About Atheists

Because I often have conversations with Christians who either explicitly or implicitly accuse me of believing something or holding some position that I don't, I'd like to say a few brief words. I mean, the words themselves will be brief. I make no claims about the length of my blog post itself. (Though if I can legitimately work pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis into a relevant paragraph, I probably deserve to violate my previous statements.)

1. "Atheists have no morals"

I hear this the most often so it gets the first spot. So I feel like I've definitely already addressed this in previous posts, but I'll reiterate the major point here. I can't speak for all atheists, but the majority of them, like myself, still agree that the concepts of right and wrong are important and relevant without the concept of a god. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was around long before Jesus and will continue to be applicable long into the foreseeable future. We humans are empathetic creatures and we know what it feels like for others to be hurt, sad, sick, happy, and healthy. We realize that we have largely the same goals and that none of us can be the best we can be without other people in our lives. I find murder morally wrong because I value human life and the right to a person to his or her own. I find stealing to be wrong because I value ownership and the right of a person to be secure in his home and property. And I don't find homosexuality wrong because it involves two consentual people and doesn't hurt anyone outside the relationship in any kind meaningful way (outside the "I'm offended!" crowd).

2. "It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a <religion>ist"

Atheism is really a lack of faith in a god or gods. I don't have faith that Yahweh doesn't exist any more than you have faith that Zeus doesn't. Our explanations of the world around us work perfectly well without the need to invoke a supernatural deity pulling the strings of the universe behind our backs. They also don't require beliefs in demonstrably false claims such as "the universe is <6000 years old" and "all modern languages were created at the tower of Babel." This claim is most likely just an attempt to make it seem like the statements "my god exists" and "your god doesn't exist" are on equal footing because they both require faith. Sorry, but to posit the existence of a deity, you need evidence. I don't need to provide you evidence of the non-existence of leprechauns to justify my non-belief; you must show me why they do. (See: null hypothesis)

3. "If you would just read the Bible/Koran, you would know the truth."

Many of us have read these books and find them to be disturbingly void of morals and evidence for their extraordinary claims. I've heard it said by some that "the quickest way to atheism is to read a bible." While I wouldn't say it leads to atheism itself, it is true that if one starts from the beginning and critically reads with an open mind, there's a slim chance that they'll suddenly convert. It would probably lead them to the opposite conclusion: that their god is mentally challenged, did a particularly poor job of planning ahead, or is losing a bet and needs to step up his game. In any case, I have like five physical bibles laying around and three more electronic searchable ones and I'm not a Christian.

4. "Atheists are angry at God"

This would mean that we actually believe in him but just don't like the guy. Many of us dislike the character portrayed in the bible but realize we don't actually hate a real thing. Would you accuse someone who gets angry at Darth Vader while watching Star Wars of actually being angry at a real Vader? Please.

5. "Atheists worship the devil"

Um, no. The devil doesn't exist either. Most satanists don't even worship the devil. Although to be fair, he does seem like a nicer guy than Yahweh.

6. "Some tyrannical dictators in the past were atheists and therefore you're both bad people."

Depends who you're talking about. While it's true that some genocidal maniacs were atheists, many were also religious. Even Hitler. I mean, take a look at this quote:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

I'm not saying he was a "true Christian" (often as that phrase is thrown around), but combining this with other quotes, it's pretty clear that he believed in some concept of a god. And I can condone his actions no more as a theist than atheist. However, it would be extremely difficult to say that the non-belief in god was the cause of their actions. And even if it was, it would have no bearing on whether a deity exists or whether any other atheist is immoral.

7. "Atheists think life is meaningless"

Imagine you walk up to a stand at a carnival and ask for an ice cream. It's the middle of July in Texas, 103° in the shade, and you've been walking around all day. The pudgy man behind the booth hands you your double-dip and tells you that this is the last ice cream cone in the world. Would your response be one of disgust, causing you to throw your cone on the ground and storm away? Or would you eat it all the more slowly, savoring every lick? My response is the latter in the context of my only life in this world. I only get one. Why waste it? That's why it is meaningful. No second chances or eternal life once I'm dead. I should make the most of what I have before it's over. Atheism does not inevitably lead one to nihilism, regardless of what your church leaders may have told you. I know plenty of non-believers and not a single person who thinks their life is fully devoid of meaning.

8. "Atheists claim that no god exists"

Close. We only lack a belief. Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that a god doesn't exist. We're just pretty sure he doesn't. (To be fair, some actually do take the hard-line position and are called "strong atheists," but I'm not one of them nor do they represent all of us.) Like the aforementioned leprechauns, I can't disprove their existence or any gods'. I am, however, justified in non-belief until positive evidence has been brought forth.

9. "Atheists wouldn't believe even if verifiable proof was shown to them."

Again, I can't speak for all atheists, but that's not true for me. I'm open to the idea that one could exist and I would publicly acknowledge it if the time ever came. That does not mean, however, that I would worship it. Any being that asks for or requires worship probably doesn't deserve it in the first place. I would judge that deity on its own merits, in the same way I judge other people. Probably more harshly if it is wiser or more knowledgeable than us.

10. "Atheists eat babies."

Aw, come on now, that's just wrong.

Proof of the existence of Santa Claus!

In the merry spirit of Christmas, I hereby provide you multiple irrefutable proofs of Santa's existence. Now it just seems so obvious! (Courtesy of Richard Carrier.)

The Santalogical Argument

1. Santa Claus is by definition the greatest gift giver conceivable.
2. An actual gift giver is by definition greater than an imaginary gift giver.
3. If an actual gift giver is greater than an imaginary one, then the greatest gift giver must be an actual one and not imaginary.
4. But (per premise 1) no gift giver can be conceptually greater than Santa Claus.
   
5. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.

The Christmasological Argument

1. Either the universe had a beginning or has always existed.
2. Both science and logic entail the universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a beginning.
4. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
5. Therefore the universe had a cause.
6. Every cause must be either personal or mechanical.
7. But every mechanical cause is by definition a part of the universe, and therefore no mechanical cause can have preceded the universe to cause it.
8. Therefore the universe must have had a personal cause.
9. Creating the universe is the greatest gift conceivable.
10. The greatest gift conceivable can only have been given by the greatest gift giver conceivable.
11. Santa Claus is by definition the greatest gift giver conceivable.
12. Therefore, Santa Claus caused the universe to exist.
13. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.

The Fine Gifting Argument

1. The laws and constants of the universe are finely tuned to require the installation of vents, chimneys, and shafts in all households in which people live (due to the laws of thermodynamics and chemical respiration).
2. It is extraordinarily improbable that those laws and constants would be arranged in precisely the way that would require exactly what Santa Claus needs to enter our homes and deliver His gifts or coals.
3. It is very probable that if Santa Claus arranged the laws and constants of the universe that He would arrange them in exactly that way, which (lo and behold) is the way they actually are.
4. Therefore it is far more probable that Santa Claus arranged the laws and constants of the universe than that random chance did.
5. Therefore it is far more probable that Santa Claus exists.
6. Therefore Santa Claus exists.

Argument from Christmas Miracles

1. Miraculous events have been documented to occur at and around Christmas (by multiple eyewitnesses and even mechanical recording devices that never lie, like TV cameras).
2. It is extraordinarily improbable that those miracles occur just by chance.
3. It is very probable that they would occur if Santa Claus caused them.
4. Therefore it is far more probable that Santa Claus caused them than that random chance did.
5. Therefore it is very probable that Santa Claus exists.
6. Therefore Santa Claus exists.

Hopefully, if you are familiar with theistic arguments you will understand the humor in the above proofs. Have a Merry Christmas and, don't forget, Santa Claus loves you!

God on Trial: The Verdict

Contradictions in the Bible

I came across this graph of biblical contradictions as I was browsing the internets the other day and though this was interesting enough to share. It's an enormous image plotting a large number of Biblical contradictions (439) with multiple sources for each specific instance. It might not be the best reference in practicality, but it does look pretty cool. Cool enough to make a wall poster, perhaps? It was made by The Reason Project, created by Sam Harris and his wife, of whom I am big fans.

It's pretty astounding that there are still so many people who deny that there are any contradictions in the Bible at all - as if it were some perfectly consistent book that people have continuously tried to poke holes in but somehow never could. To anyone who has actually done research on it, they know the fundamentalist claim is a bunch of crap, but for people who don't know or would just rather believe otherwise, it's a relatively easy claim to make. You don't really have to know anything about what's in the bible or have fully read it, and in the event that a good, sound contradiction is proposed, it can usually be dismissed by a wave of the hand to the tone of, "you're taking it out of context," "you don't understand the full meaning of the passage," or, my favorite, "God works in mysterious ways."

I think the real answer is obvious - it's a collection of writings made by many different men over a long period of time. Most 120-minute long movies don't go without some kind of plot holes; why should we expect any differently from a 788,258 word mega-book? I doubt that the document I have linked above is even an exhaustive list, but it's certainly a good starting point and enough to chew on for those who may think that the bible is the infallible and inerrant word of an all-knowing god.

To be fair, I certainly haven't checked all of these myself (though I did look up a few I wasn't familiar with) and I grant that not all of these may even be contradictions. Some may simply be legitimate misunderstandings or translation issues. However, that begs the question: is a book so poorly written as to be interpreted differently by almost every Christian indicative of the work of an all-powerful god? If so, I think I could do him one better, and if not, why give him the omni-attributes in the first place? Something to think about.