What do you think?
Rate this book
Some Mistakes of Moses
Robert Green Ingersoll's book is an examination of the Pentateuch, or the first five books of The Bible, typically attributed to Moses. The author has written the book not to disparage the beliefs of Christianity, but rather because he views religion as oftentimes divisive. "It is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we know nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and despise each other" states Ingersoll in his introduction. Ingersoll takes a measured approach to his critique of the Old Testament, progressing through the work carefully and raising his objections to the various stories presented. The book is divided into chapters, each of which is focused on a different occurrence or belief espoused in The Bible. Examples include chapters on the story of creation, the plagues of the Old Testament, "The Garden," and many more.
Ingersoll has been compared to Mark Twain, and with good reason. "Some Mistakes of Moses" is the work of an author in full command of his wit. The book is easily approached by the laymen, but detailed enough to appeal to the informed reader. Written in a casual style, it is a light read about a deep subject.
"Some Mistakes of Moses" is a valuable piece of religious criticism. For those interested in the subject matter, the words of Robert Green Ingersoll will be enlightening. A favorite title of agnostics and atheists for many years, Ingersoll's work is every bit as powerful today as the day it was written.
About the Publisher
Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
Ingersoll has been compared to Mark Twain, and with good reason. "Some Mistakes of Moses" is the work of an author in full command of his wit. The book is easily approached by the laymen, but detailed enough to appeal to the informed reader. Written in a casual style, it is a light read about a deep subject.
"Some Mistakes of Moses" is a valuable piece of religious criticism. For those interested in the subject matter, the words of Robert Green Ingersoll will be enlightening. A favorite title of agnostics and atheists for many years, Ingersoll's work is every bit as powerful today as the day it was written.
About the Publisher
Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
292 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1879
About the author
Robert G. Ingersoll
995 books335 followers"On August 11, 1833, was born the greatest and noblest of the Western World; an immense personality, -- unique, lovable, sublime; the peerless orator of all time, and as true a poet as Nature ever held in tender clasp upon her loving breast, and, in words coined for the chosen few, told of the joys and sorrows, hopes, dreams, and fears of universal life; a patriot whose golden words and deathless deeds were worthy of the Great Republic; a philanthropist, real and genuine; a philosopher whose central theme was human love, -- who placed 'the holy hearth of home' higher than the altar of any god; an iconoclast, a builder -- a reformer, perfectly poised, absolutely honest, and as fearless as truth itself -- the most aggressive and formidable foe of superstition -- the most valiant champion of reason -- Robert G. Ingersoll." - Herman E. Kittredge
Robert Green Ingersoll, who became the best known advocate of freethought in the 19th-century, was born in Dresden, N.Y. The son of an impoverished itinerant pastor, he later recalled his formative church experiences: "The minister asked us if we knew that we all deserved to go to hell, and we all answered 'yes.' Then we were asked if we would be willing to go to hell if it was God's will, and every little liar shouted 'Yes!'" He became an attorney by apprenticeship, and a colonel in the Civil War, fighting in the Battle of Shiloh. In 1867, Ingersoll was appointed Illinois' first Attorney General. His political career was cut short by his refusal to halt his controversial lectures, but he achieved national political fame for his thrilling nomination speech for James G. Blaine for president at the national convention of the Republican Party in 1876. Ingersoll was good friends with three U.S. presidents. The distinguished attorney was known and admired by most of the leading progressives and thinkers of his day.
Ingersoll traveled the continent for 30 years, speaking to capacity audiences, once attracting 50,000 people to a lecture in Chicago—40,000 too many for the Exposition Center. His repertoire included 3 to 4-hour lectures on Shakespeare, Voltaire and Burns, but the largest crowds turned out to hear him denounce the bible and religion. He initially settled in Peoria, Illinois, then in Washington, D.C., where he successfully defended falsely accused men in the "Star Route" scandal, the most famous political trial of the 19th century. Religious rumors against Ingersoll abounded. One had it that Ingersoll's son was a drunkard who more than once had to be carried away from the table. Ingersoll wrote: "It is not true that intoxicating beverages are served at my table. It is not true that my son ever was drunk. It is not true that he had to be carried away from the table. Besides, I have no son!"
During the Civil War he was commissioned as Colonel and commander of the 11th Illinois Volunteer Cavalry, and was captured near Corinth, Mississippi. Although soon released, he still made time to treat his Confederate captors to a rousing anti slavery speech.
He hoped for but was never awarded a Cabinet post. The Republicans were afraid of his unorthodox religious views. He was told that he could progress politically if he hid his religious views, but Ingersoll refused on the charge that withholding information from the public would be immoral.
He strongly advocated equal rights for blacks and women. He defended Susan B. Anthony from hecklers when she spoke in Peoria; when every hotel in the city refused to house Frederick Douglass, he welcomed him into his home.
More: https://ffrf.org/news/day/dayitems/it...
http://infidels.org/library/historica...
http://www.robertgreeningersoll.org/8-2/
http://www.positiveatheism.org/tochin...
http://www.philosopedia.org/index.php...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G...
Robert Green Ingersoll, who became the best known advocate of freethought in the 19th-century, was born in Dresden, N.Y. The son of an impoverished itinerant pastor, he later recalled his formative church experiences: "The minister asked us if we knew that we all deserved to go to hell, and we all answered 'yes.' Then we were asked if we would be willing to go to hell if it was God's will, and every little liar shouted 'Yes!'" He became an attorney by apprenticeship, and a colonel in the Civil War, fighting in the Battle of Shiloh. In 1867, Ingersoll was appointed Illinois' first Attorney General. His political career was cut short by his refusal to halt his controversial lectures, but he achieved national political fame for his thrilling nomination speech for James G. Blaine for president at the national convention of the Republican Party in 1876. Ingersoll was good friends with three U.S. presidents. The distinguished attorney was known and admired by most of the leading progressives and thinkers of his day.
Ingersoll traveled the continent for 30 years, speaking to capacity audiences, once attracting 50,000 people to a lecture in Chicago—40,000 too many for the Exposition Center. His repertoire included 3 to 4-hour lectures on Shakespeare, Voltaire and Burns, but the largest crowds turned out to hear him denounce the bible and religion. He initially settled in Peoria, Illinois, then in Washington, D.C., where he successfully defended falsely accused men in the "Star Route" scandal, the most famous political trial of the 19th century. Religious rumors against Ingersoll abounded. One had it that Ingersoll's son was a drunkard who more than once had to be carried away from the table. Ingersoll wrote: "It is not true that intoxicating beverages are served at my table. It is not true that my son ever was drunk. It is not true that he had to be carried away from the table. Besides, I have no son!"
During the Civil War he was commissioned as Colonel and commander of the 11th Illinois Volunteer Cavalry, and was captured near Corinth, Mississippi. Although soon released, he still made time to treat his Confederate captors to a rousing anti slavery speech.
He hoped for but was never awarded a Cabinet post. The Republicans were afraid of his unorthodox religious views. He was told that he could progress politically if he hid his religious views, but Ingersoll refused on the charge that withholding information from the public would be immoral.
He strongly advocated equal rights for blacks and women. He defended Susan B. Anthony from hecklers when she spoke in Peoria; when every hotel in the city refused to house Frederick Douglass, he welcomed him into his home.
More: https://ffrf.org/news/day/dayitems/it...
http://infidels.org/library/historica...
http://www.robertgreeningersoll.org/8-2/
http://www.positiveatheism.org/tochin...
http://www.philosopedia.org/index.php...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
January 25, 2024
I loved this! I didn’t really think there were free thinkers of this caliber 150 years ago! I was wrong and bow in the dust. This was a ruthless and delightful thrashing of the first five books of the Old Testament, both in terms of internal inconsistencies and against the science of the day.
What I struggle with is how there are any christians left, or religion at all for that matter. It should all have become myth in the Age of Enlightenment. Of course I grew up indoctrinated myself and stayed that way for two decades as my scientific mind contorted itself to try to make things fit, until it wasn’t possible anymore.
What I struggle with is how there are any christians left, or religion at all for that matter. It should all have become myth in the Age of Enlightenment. Of course I grew up indoctrinated myself and stayed that way for two decades as my scientific mind contorted itself to try to make things fit, until it wasn’t possible anymore.
March 27, 2011
The Pentateuch is hailed as a foundation for modern Christianity and ancient Judaism. As a former bible-believing propagator, sundry situations in the Old (and New) Testaments plagued me. Being reared to believe the Bible without allowance for critical reasoning, I assumed that all my teachers and biblical theologians MUST have "figured it all out." It was my duty to trust their interpretation and the inspiration of these difficult passages.
Robert Ingersoll's books were off-limits to my narrow Christian sect. Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Kent Hovind dominated my library bookshelf, but their Christian Apologetics left me even more confused. Gaping holes in their reasoning pervaded their arguments. Accounts did not match. Acrobatics were necessary to fit the Bible with scientific truth, archaeological research, and ancient historical accounts. My focus turned elsewhere.
I plunged into other sources for truth. Upon my journey, I was recommended "Some Mistakes of Moses." This book highlighted questions that had ever plagued me. So, I was not the first to have asked them, eh? Only a few of the accounts detailed in the Pentateuch are addressed in this small edition. Ingersoll asks imminent questions from each biblical story from Creation to The Flood to the Egyptian Captivity. These questions force the reader to engage his own mind to unravel the mysteries of scripture. As a former believer, I had heard some of Ingersoll's arguments feebly defended by theologians. Ingersoll's philosophy cannot help but permeate his endless questioning, which unpretentiously influences the reader's mind towards unbelief in the improbability of each.
Freethinking is essential to gaining insight from this critique. My emotions ranged from outrage at the ludicrousness of a tale to contagious laughter at the glaring myths purported as "absolute truth." Even in the 19th century, Ingersoll was privy to the barbaric portrayal of the bible as "the inerrant word of God."
Robert Ingersoll's books were off-limits to my narrow Christian sect. Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Kent Hovind dominated my library bookshelf, but their Christian Apologetics left me even more confused. Gaping holes in their reasoning pervaded their arguments. Accounts did not match. Acrobatics were necessary to fit the Bible with scientific truth, archaeological research, and ancient historical accounts. My focus turned elsewhere.
I plunged into other sources for truth. Upon my journey, I was recommended "Some Mistakes of Moses." This book highlighted questions that had ever plagued me. So, I was not the first to have asked them, eh? Only a few of the accounts detailed in the Pentateuch are addressed in this small edition. Ingersoll asks imminent questions from each biblical story from Creation to The Flood to the Egyptian Captivity. These questions force the reader to engage his own mind to unravel the mysteries of scripture. As a former believer, I had heard some of Ingersoll's arguments feebly defended by theologians. Ingersoll's philosophy cannot help but permeate his endless questioning, which unpretentiously influences the reader's mind towards unbelief in the improbability of each.
Freethinking is essential to gaining insight from this critique. My emotions ranged from outrage at the ludicrousness of a tale to contagious laughter at the glaring myths purported as "absolute truth." Even in the 19th century, Ingersoll was privy to the barbaric portrayal of the bible as "the inerrant word of God."
December 1, 2012
"For many years I have regarded the Pentateuch simply as a record of a barbarous people, in which are found a great number of the ceremonies of savagery, many absurd and unjust laws, and thousands of ideas inconsistent with known and demonstrated facts. To me it seemed almost a crime to teach that this record was written by inspired men; that slavery, polygamy, wars of conquest and extermination were right, and that there was a time when men could win the approbation of infinite Intelligence, Justice, and Mercy, by violating maidens and by butchering babes."
PROs:
* Renders the belief that the Bible was written or inspired by an infinite intelligence utterly untenable
* Counters all the arguments of theologians
* Uses a perfect combination of reason, logic, and sometimes science to make any sort of literal belief in the Bible patently absurd
* Very humorous and witty
* Some very good, emotional writing
* Extremely in depth, almost too much so at some points
CONs:
* There is so much madness in a religious reading of the Bible that it is impossible to even come close to covering it all in one volume
* He skips most of the violence in the Bible due to it being too inappropriate
* Some slightly outdated concepts (it was written in the 1800s)
"The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered the ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his Mother infinitely absurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem, and in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds."
Some Mistakes of Moses is widely regarded as a classic of intellectual Biblical criticism, and rightly so. Ingersoll goes into so much detail about the topics he covers that it would be nearly impossible to retain a belief in the Bible as wholly true, something I'd never thought I'd say, as I know how powerful belief can be. He begins with the creation story (both), and after completely debunking them (using mainly rational argument rather than appeals to science), he also debunks favorite theistic counter arguments, such has how the days weren't really days. He moves of to the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the Exodus. If these stories were trees and Ingersoll was the hatchet, he not only chopped the trees down, but he chopped the fallen trees into microscopic specs. As an example:
"Why should an infinite God care whether mankind made ointments and perfumes like his or not? Why should the Creator of all things threaten to kill a priest who approached his altar without having washed his hands and feet? These commandments and these penalties would disgrace the vainest tyrant that ever sat, by chance, upon a throne."
Ingersoll briefly touches on the subjects of extreme violence and slavery/absurd laws and customs in the Bible, but says that he doesn't want to stain his pages with such savagery. Seeing as how this is about 90% of the Bible, he saved himself a lot of time with this step, but the book is still over 200 pages long. He says:
"When I speak of God, I mean that god who prevented man from putting forth his hand and taking also of the fruit of the tree of life that he might live forever; of that god who multiplied the agonies of woman, increased the weary toil of man, and in his anger drowned a world--of that god whose altars reeked with human blood, who butchered babes, violated maidens, enslaved men and filled the earth with cruelty and crime; of that god who made heaven for the few, hell for the many, and who will gloat forever and ever upon the writhings of the lost and damned."
What makes the book so good is the fact that instead of simply saying something like "this is scientifically impossible" or "no sane person could believe this", he actually uses impeccable logic to demonstrate that these stories absolutely can not be true. I would provide an example, but I don't want to distort Ingersoll's perfectly reasoned views with a summarization. If the reader permits me, I will give one quick example, but understand Ingersoll goes into exponentially more depth: when speaking of the Flood, we are told that at least two of each animal is taken aboard, including 7 of each clean animal (in contradicting stories). Ingersoll calculates that for a sloth to reach the Middle East that, traveling at an average constant rate, it would be traveling for longer than the universe has existed (according to Biblical timelines). Great examples such as these are riddled throughout the book. It is a must read for everyone and is possibly my favorite book of all time, irrespective of genre.
"Surely the time must come when the wealth of the world will not be wasted in the propagation of ignorant creeds and miraculous mistakes. The time must come when churches and cathedrals will be dedicated to the use of man; when minister and priest will deem the discoveries of the living of more importance than the errors of the dead; when the truths of Nature will outrank the "sacred" falsehoods of the past, and when a single fact will outweigh all the miracles of Holy Writ. Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind? When every church becomes a school, every cathedral a university, every clergyman a teacher, and all their hearers brave and honest thinkers, then, and not until then, will the dream of poet, patriot, philanthropist and philosopher, become a real and blessed truth."
PROs:
* Renders the belief that the Bible was written or inspired by an infinite intelligence utterly untenable
* Counters all the arguments of theologians
* Uses a perfect combination of reason, logic, and sometimes science to make any sort of literal belief in the Bible patently absurd
* Very humorous and witty
* Some very good, emotional writing
* Extremely in depth, almost too much so at some points
CONs:
* There is so much madness in a religious reading of the Bible that it is impossible to even come close to covering it all in one volume
* He skips most of the violence in the Bible due to it being too inappropriate
* Some slightly outdated concepts (it was written in the 1800s)
"The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered the ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his Mother infinitely absurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem, and in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds."
Some Mistakes of Moses is widely regarded as a classic of intellectual Biblical criticism, and rightly so. Ingersoll goes into so much detail about the topics he covers that it would be nearly impossible to retain a belief in the Bible as wholly true, something I'd never thought I'd say, as I know how powerful belief can be. He begins with the creation story (both), and after completely debunking them (using mainly rational argument rather than appeals to science), he also debunks favorite theistic counter arguments, such has how the days weren't really days. He moves of to the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the Exodus. If these stories were trees and Ingersoll was the hatchet, he not only chopped the trees down, but he chopped the fallen trees into microscopic specs. As an example:
"Why should an infinite God care whether mankind made ointments and perfumes like his or not? Why should the Creator of all things threaten to kill a priest who approached his altar without having washed his hands and feet? These commandments and these penalties would disgrace the vainest tyrant that ever sat, by chance, upon a throne."
Ingersoll briefly touches on the subjects of extreme violence and slavery/absurd laws and customs in the Bible, but says that he doesn't want to stain his pages with such savagery. Seeing as how this is about 90% of the Bible, he saved himself a lot of time with this step, but the book is still over 200 pages long. He says:
"When I speak of God, I mean that god who prevented man from putting forth his hand and taking also of the fruit of the tree of life that he might live forever; of that god who multiplied the agonies of woman, increased the weary toil of man, and in his anger drowned a world--of that god whose altars reeked with human blood, who butchered babes, violated maidens, enslaved men and filled the earth with cruelty and crime; of that god who made heaven for the few, hell for the many, and who will gloat forever and ever upon the writhings of the lost and damned."
What makes the book so good is the fact that instead of simply saying something like "this is scientifically impossible" or "no sane person could believe this", he actually uses impeccable logic to demonstrate that these stories absolutely can not be true. I would provide an example, but I don't want to distort Ingersoll's perfectly reasoned views with a summarization. If the reader permits me, I will give one quick example, but understand Ingersoll goes into exponentially more depth: when speaking of the Flood, we are told that at least two of each animal is taken aboard, including 7 of each clean animal (in contradicting stories). Ingersoll calculates that for a sloth to reach the Middle East that, traveling at an average constant rate, it would be traveling for longer than the universe has existed (according to Biblical timelines). Great examples such as these are riddled throughout the book. It is a must read for everyone and is possibly my favorite book of all time, irrespective of genre.
"Surely the time must come when the wealth of the world will not be wasted in the propagation of ignorant creeds and miraculous mistakes. The time must come when churches and cathedrals will be dedicated to the use of man; when minister and priest will deem the discoveries of the living of more importance than the errors of the dead; when the truths of Nature will outrank the "sacred" falsehoods of the past, and when a single fact will outweigh all the miracles of Holy Writ. Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind? When every church becomes a school, every cathedral a university, every clergyman a teacher, and all their hearers brave and honest thinkers, then, and not until then, will the dream of poet, patriot, philanthropist and philosopher, become a real and blessed truth."
January 1, 2023
Robert Ingersoll was a household name in the U.S. at the end of the 19th century. In addition to being an author, Ingersoll was a traveling lecturer. A contemporary of Mark Twain, Ingersoll filled auditoriums with his take on religion and society. Called the Great Agnostic his critique of religions, especially Christianity, brought him fame and fortune.
His greatest weapons were reason and humor. Reading "Some Mistakes of Moses" is still fun due to both his insights and his way of hammering the nonsense found in both the old and new testaments with large doses of humor. He became so popular among the public he often outdrew Mark Twain for the size of his audiences.
"Some Mistakes of Moses" dismantles much of what the old testament claims. Ingersoll won over his audiences with his calm, rational, and funny speeches. "Some Mistakes" contains many of his most popular talks and, as such, is a reminder that Americans used to be much more accepting of criticism of Christianity than we are now.
A must read for any religious skeptic and for any religious person with a sense of humor.
His greatest weapons were reason and humor. Reading "Some Mistakes of Moses" is still fun due to both his insights and his way of hammering the nonsense found in both the old and new testaments with large doses of humor. He became so popular among the public he often outdrew Mark Twain for the size of his audiences.
"Some Mistakes of Moses" dismantles much of what the old testament claims. Ingersoll won over his audiences with his calm, rational, and funny speeches. "Some Mistakes" contains many of his most popular talks and, as such, is a reminder that Americans used to be much more accepting of criticism of Christianity than we are now.
A must read for any religious skeptic and for any religious person with a sense of humor.
February 9, 2013
"For many years I have regarded the Pentateuch simply as a record of a barbarous people, in which are found a great number of the ceremonies of savagery, many absurd and unjust laws, and thousands of ideas inconsistent with known and demonstrated facts. To me it seemed almost a crime to teach that this record was written by inspired men; that slavery, polygamy, wars of conquest and extermination were right, and that there was a time when men could win the approbation of infinite Intelligence, Justice, and Mercy, by violating maidens and by butchering babes."
PROs:
* Renders the belief that the Bible was written or inspired by an infinite intelligence utterly untenable
* Counters all the arguments of theologians
* Uses a perfect combination of reason, logic, and sometimes science to make any sort of literal belief in the Bible patently absurd
* Very humorous and witty
* Some very good, emotional writing
* Extremely in depth, almost too much so at some points
CONs:
* There is so much madness in a religious reading of the Bible that it is impossible to even come close to covering it all in one volume
* He skips most of the violence in the Bible due to it being too inappropriate
* Some slightly outdated concepts (it was written in the 1800s)
"The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered the ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his Mother infinitely absurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem, and in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds."
Some Mistakes of Moses is widely regarded as a classic of intellectual Biblical criticism, and rightly so. Ingersoll goes into so much detail about the topics he covers that it would be nearly impossible to retain a belief in the Bible as wholly true, something I'd never thought I'd say, as I know how powerful belief can be. He begins with the creation story (both), and after completely debunking them (using mainly rational argument rather than appeals to science), he also debunks favorite theistic counter arguments, such has how the days weren't really days. He moves of to the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the Exodus. If these stories were trees and Ingersoll was the hatchet, he not only chopped the trees down, but he chopped the fallen trees into microscopic specs. As an example:
"Why should an infinite God care whether mankind made ointments and perfumes like his or not? Why should the Creator of all things threaten to kill a priest who approached his altar without having washed his hands and feet? These commandments and these penalties would disgrace the vainest tyrant that ever sat, by chance, upon a throne."
Ingersoll briefly touches on the subjects of extreme violence and slavery/absurd laws and customs in the Bible, but says that he doesn't want to stain his pages with such savagery. Seeing as how this is about 90% of the Bible, he saved himself a lot of time with this step, but the book is still over 200 pages long. He says:
"When I speak of God, I mean that god who prevented man from putting forth his hand and taking also of the fruit of the tree of life that he might live forever; of that god who multiplied the agonies of woman, increased the weary toil of man, and in his anger drowned a world--of that god whose altars reeked with human blood, who butchered babes, violated maidens, enslaved men and filled the earth with cruelty and crime; of that god who made heaven for the few, hell for the many, and who will gloat forever and ever upon the writhings of the lost and damned."
What makes the book so good is the fact that instead of simply saying something like "this is scientifically impossible" or "no sane person could believe this", he actually uses impeccable logic to demonstrate that these stories absolutely can not be true. I would provide an example, but I don't want to distort Ingersoll's perfectly reasoned views with a summarization. If the reader permits me, I will give one quick example, but understand Ingersoll goes into exponentially more depth: when speaking of the Flood, we are told that at least two of each animal is taken aboard, including 7 of each clean animal (in contradicting stories). Ingersoll calculates that for a sloth to reach the Middle East that, traveling at an average constant rate, it would be traveling for longer than the universe has existed (according to Biblical timelines). Great examples such as these are riddled throughout the book. It is a must read for everyone and is possibly my favorite book of all time, irrespective of genre.
"Surely the time must come when the wealth of the world will not be wasted in the propagation of ignorant creeds and miraculous mistakes. The time must come when churches and cathedrals will be dedicated to the use of man; when minister and priest will deem the discoveries of the living of more importance than the errors of the dead; when the truths of Nature will outrank the "sacred" falsehoods of the past, and when a single fact will outweigh all the miracles of Holy Writ. Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind? When every church becomes a school, every cathedral a university, every clergyman a teacher, and all their hearers brave and honest thinkers, then, and not until then, will the dream of poet, patriot, philanthropist and philosopher, become a real and blessed truth."
PROs:
* Renders the belief that the Bible was written or inspired by an infinite intelligence utterly untenable
* Counters all the arguments of theologians
* Uses a perfect combination of reason, logic, and sometimes science to make any sort of literal belief in the Bible patently absurd
* Very humorous and witty
* Some very good, emotional writing
* Extremely in depth, almost too much so at some points
CONs:
* There is so much madness in a religious reading of the Bible that it is impossible to even come close to covering it all in one volume
* He skips most of the violence in the Bible due to it being too inappropriate
* Some slightly outdated concepts (it was written in the 1800s)
"The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered the ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his Mother infinitely absurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem, and in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds."
Some Mistakes of Moses is widely regarded as a classic of intellectual Biblical criticism, and rightly so. Ingersoll goes into so much detail about the topics he covers that it would be nearly impossible to retain a belief in the Bible as wholly true, something I'd never thought I'd say, as I know how powerful belief can be. He begins with the creation story (both), and after completely debunking them (using mainly rational argument rather than appeals to science), he also debunks favorite theistic counter arguments, such has how the days weren't really days. He moves of to the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the Exodus. If these stories were trees and Ingersoll was the hatchet, he not only chopped the trees down, but he chopped the fallen trees into microscopic specs. As an example:
"Why should an infinite God care whether mankind made ointments and perfumes like his or not? Why should the Creator of all things threaten to kill a priest who approached his altar without having washed his hands and feet? These commandments and these penalties would disgrace the vainest tyrant that ever sat, by chance, upon a throne."
Ingersoll briefly touches on the subjects of extreme violence and slavery/absurd laws and customs in the Bible, but says that he doesn't want to stain his pages with such savagery. Seeing as how this is about 90% of the Bible, he saved himself a lot of time with this step, but the book is still over 200 pages long. He says:
"When I speak of God, I mean that god who prevented man from putting forth his hand and taking also of the fruit of the tree of life that he might live forever; of that god who multiplied the agonies of woman, increased the weary toil of man, and in his anger drowned a world--of that god whose altars reeked with human blood, who butchered babes, violated maidens, enslaved men and filled the earth with cruelty and crime; of that god who made heaven for the few, hell for the many, and who will gloat forever and ever upon the writhings of the lost and damned."
What makes the book so good is the fact that instead of simply saying something like "this is scientifically impossible" or "no sane person could believe this", he actually uses impeccable logic to demonstrate that these stories absolutely can not be true. I would provide an example, but I don't want to distort Ingersoll's perfectly reasoned views with a summarization. If the reader permits me, I will give one quick example, but understand Ingersoll goes into exponentially more depth: when speaking of the Flood, we are told that at least two of each animal is taken aboard, including 7 of each clean animal (in contradicting stories). Ingersoll calculates that for a sloth to reach the Middle East that, traveling at an average constant rate, it would be traveling for longer than the universe has existed (according to Biblical timelines). Great examples such as these are riddled throughout the book. It is a must read for everyone and is possibly my favorite book of all time, irrespective of genre.
"Surely the time must come when the wealth of the world will not be wasted in the propagation of ignorant creeds and miraculous mistakes. The time must come when churches and cathedrals will be dedicated to the use of man; when minister and priest will deem the discoveries of the living of more importance than the errors of the dead; when the truths of Nature will outrank the "sacred" falsehoods of the past, and when a single fact will outweigh all the miracles of Holy Writ. Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind? When every church becomes a school, every cathedral a university, every clergyman a teacher, and all their hearers brave and honest thinkers, then, and not until then, will the dream of poet, patriot, philanthropist and philosopher, become a real and blessed truth."
July 10, 2020
A little background, per usual, about the great Ingersoll: Robert G. Ingersoll (1833 - 1899), known as "The Great Agnostic", was a great writer and the finest, most popular orator of his time. In 1876, he spoke to an estimated 50,000 people in the Chicago Exposition Building which was the largest crowd to see one man in Chicago and one of the largest crowds ever attracted by one person. This was before electronic public address systems were invented! He isn't as well known as he should be, partly because he never rose that high in politics, the highest office he held was Illinois Attorney General. Why was this? Because his beliefs were too progressive for the late 19th century: he believed in the equality of races, equality of sexes, and that religion was man-made hokum.
In this book, Ingersoll takes down the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) which are attributed to Moses. In the usual Ingersoll fashion, he eloquently points out the absurdity of a number of the claims and stories contained in these books, which he argues were written by primitive men and not by some all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being. It was an absolute joy to read, and hard to believe it was written over 140 years ago, in 1879, when religion had an absolute stranglehold over the minds of the masses.
I could just gush and gush about this book, but instead I'll end with three of my favorite quotes from the great Ingersoll's book:
“Is it possible that the Pentateuch could not have been written by uninspired men? that the assistance of God was necessary to produce these books? Is it possible that Galilei ascertained the mechanical principles of 'Virtual Velocity,' the laws of falling bodies and of all motion; that Copernicus ascertained the true position of the earth and accounted for all celestial phenomena; that Kepler discovered his three laws—discoveries of such importance that the 8th of May, 1618, may be called the birth-day of modern science; that Newton gave to the world the Method of Fluxions, the Theory of Universal Gravitation, and the Decomposition of Light; that Euclid, Cavalieri, Descartes, and Leibniz, almost completed the science of mathematics; that all the discoveries in optics, hydrostatics, pneumatics and chemistry, the experiments, discoveries, and inventions of Galvani, Volta, Franklin and Morse, of Trevithick, Watt and Fulton and of all the pioneers of progress—that all this was accomplished by uninspired men, while the writer of the Pentateuch was directed and inspired by an infinite God? Is it possible that the codes of China, India, Egypt, Greece and Rome were made by man, and that the laws recorded in the Pentateuch were alone given by God? Is it possible that Æschylus and Shakespeare, Burns, and Beranger, Goethe and Schiller, and all the poets of the world, and all their wondrous tragedies and songs are but the work of men, while no intelligence except the infinite God could be the author of the Pentateuch? Is it possible that of all the books that crowd the libraries of the world, the books of science, fiction, history and song, that all save only one, have been produced by man? Is it possible that of all these, the bible only is the work of God?”
“The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered the ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his Mother infinitely absurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem, and in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds.”
“If the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy and geology when the bible was introduced among them, as they do now, there never could have been one believer in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of the various parts of the bible had known as much about the sciences as is now known by every intelligent man, the book never could have been written. It was produced by ignorance, and has been believed and defended by its author. It has lost power in the proportion that man has gained knowledge. A few years ago, this book was appealed to in the settlement of all scientific questions; but now, even the clergy confess that in such matters, it has ceased to speak with the voice of authority. For the establishment of facts, the word of man is now considered far better than the word of God. In the world of science, Jehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. All that God told Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Laplace, and Humboldt. In matters of fact, the bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the bible. The tables have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring to prove that the bible is not inconsistent with Science. The standard has been changed.”
1879, folks.
In this book, Ingersoll takes down the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) which are attributed to Moses. In the usual Ingersoll fashion, he eloquently points out the absurdity of a number of the claims and stories contained in these books, which he argues were written by primitive men and not by some all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being. It was an absolute joy to read, and hard to believe it was written over 140 years ago, in 1879, when religion had an absolute stranglehold over the minds of the masses.
I could just gush and gush about this book, but instead I'll end with three of my favorite quotes from the great Ingersoll's book:
“Is it possible that the Pentateuch could not have been written by uninspired men? that the assistance of God was necessary to produce these books? Is it possible that Galilei ascertained the mechanical principles of 'Virtual Velocity,' the laws of falling bodies and of all motion; that Copernicus ascertained the true position of the earth and accounted for all celestial phenomena; that Kepler discovered his three laws—discoveries of such importance that the 8th of May, 1618, may be called the birth-day of modern science; that Newton gave to the world the Method of Fluxions, the Theory of Universal Gravitation, and the Decomposition of Light; that Euclid, Cavalieri, Descartes, and Leibniz, almost completed the science of mathematics; that all the discoveries in optics, hydrostatics, pneumatics and chemistry, the experiments, discoveries, and inventions of Galvani, Volta, Franklin and Morse, of Trevithick, Watt and Fulton and of all the pioneers of progress—that all this was accomplished by uninspired men, while the writer of the Pentateuch was directed and inspired by an infinite God? Is it possible that the codes of China, India, Egypt, Greece and Rome were made by man, and that the laws recorded in the Pentateuch were alone given by God? Is it possible that Æschylus and Shakespeare, Burns, and Beranger, Goethe and Schiller, and all the poets of the world, and all their wondrous tragedies and songs are but the work of men, while no intelligence except the infinite God could be the author of the Pentateuch? Is it possible that of all the books that crowd the libraries of the world, the books of science, fiction, history and song, that all save only one, have been produced by man? Is it possible that of all these, the bible only is the work of God?”
“The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away with the heaven of the New Testament, rendered the ascension of our Lord and the assumption of his Mother infinitely absurd, crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New Jerusalem, and in their places gave to man a wilderness of worlds.”
“If the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy and geology when the bible was introduced among them, as they do now, there never could have been one believer in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of the various parts of the bible had known as much about the sciences as is now known by every intelligent man, the book never could have been written. It was produced by ignorance, and has been believed and defended by its author. It has lost power in the proportion that man has gained knowledge. A few years ago, this book was appealed to in the settlement of all scientific questions; but now, even the clergy confess that in such matters, it has ceased to speak with the voice of authority. For the establishment of facts, the word of man is now considered far better than the word of God. In the world of science, Jehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. All that God told Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Laplace, and Humboldt. In matters of fact, the bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the bible. The tables have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring to prove that the bible is not inconsistent with Science. The standard has been changed.”
1879, folks.
January 31, 2013
From childhood, we are taught to treat scripture with a certain air of reverence. We dare not to question, even though some may not take many of its accounts literally. We simply do not dare to venture much beyond the realm of 'symbolical,' to perhaps... outright uninformed, errant, preposterous, evil, or barbaric. We dare not question what ought to be the moral or logical choices of a God, if he so were to exist. We dare not imagine that the claims, and events of the Bible, would actually be immensely conflicting with his supposed benevolent and moral nature.
"Some Mistakes of Moses" is one such book... which dares its readers to take the intellectual journey through some of the most stand-out stories of the Bible. In it, Ingersoll touches, very pointedly, upon the many tremendous incongruences within the first five books of the Bible -- that is to say, the Pentateuch. These incongruences go beyond the basics of 'eye witness differences,' to just outright poor storytelling, crude/primitive ideas, implausible contradictions, and moral depravity.
If one is raised in such a culture, as to hold the Bible in reverence, and is now a freethinker, it would behoove one to read this book. It is a refreshing take on perspective -- an awakening of the mind, and an aid in helping one think critically upon the texts being read, instead of just 'interpreted.' To the former believer, reading the Pentateuch (or the Bible, in general), can pose a challenge -- since childhood indoctrination re-maps the mind in order to give plausibility and favoritism to these ideas -- attitudes which we would not give to books of a different religion, or to those now considered mythology.
I recommend this as an essential book to any agnostic, atheist, freethinker, or anyone truly questioning their current belief system.
"Some Mistakes of Moses" is one such book... which dares its readers to take the intellectual journey through some of the most stand-out stories of the Bible. In it, Ingersoll touches, very pointedly, upon the many tremendous incongruences within the first five books of the Bible -- that is to say, the Pentateuch. These incongruences go beyond the basics of 'eye witness differences,' to just outright poor storytelling, crude/primitive ideas, implausible contradictions, and moral depravity.
If one is raised in such a culture, as to hold the Bible in reverence, and is now a freethinker, it would behoove one to read this book. It is a refreshing take on perspective -- an awakening of the mind, and an aid in helping one think critically upon the texts being read, instead of just 'interpreted.' To the former believer, reading the Pentateuch (or the Bible, in general), can pose a challenge -- since childhood indoctrination re-maps the mind in order to give plausibility and favoritism to these ideas -- attitudes which we would not give to books of a different religion, or to those now considered mythology.
I recommend this as an essential book to any agnostic, atheist, freethinker, or anyone truly questioning their current belief system.
September 5, 2026
I started reading Robert G. Ingersoll’s Some Mistakes of Moses thinking I would mostly be reading an argument against the Bible. Instead, I’ve become much more interested in a different question. I’m less interested in whether every story literally happened and more interested in what these stories were trying to teach people about how to live.
One of the first things that struck me was the contradiction between Christian teachings and Christian history. Christianity teaches turning the other cheek and loving your enemies, yet Christian history contains enormous violence, including the Crusades and the sack of Constantinople. I keep coming back to the distance between a teaching and the way people actually use it.
I’ve also thought about hell. We talk about it as some future place of punishment, yet human beings have already demonstrated an extraordinary ability to create hell on earth.
Ingersoll says that reason is the highest attribute of man and that if God can communicate with humanity, it must be through reason. I really like that idea, but I also see what I think is an innocent flaw in it. Reason isn’t equally developed in everyone. We all have different knowledge, experience, abilities, incentives and biases. Reason can be manipulated.
Religion may partly solve that problem by taking complicated ideas about how to live and turning them into simple rules that people can understand. Love your neighbour is a good example. The danger comes when the rule becomes an authority in itself and people stop asking why.
Which brings me to the Garden of Eden.
I see Eden as a story about growing up. A child begins in a protected world where other people take care of them. Then comes curiosity, knowledge, awareness, independence and eventually responsibility.
I don’t see the pursuit of knowledge as humanity’s great mistake. I see it as an unavoidable part of being human.
Home is not where you find your agency. Home is where you develop the skills that allow you to exercise it.
As a parent, I understand the bittersweetness of that. I miss when my kids were little and cuddly, but I love watching them spread their wings. You want to protect them, but protecting them forever would prevent them from becoming capable themselves.
And one of the first questions a young child learns to ask is why.
That seems almost fundamental to being human. We want to understand. We want to know what is happening and why it is happening. And eventually that curiosity goes deeper than the answers provided by whoever is supposed to have the answers.
That creates a tension that isn’t limited to religion. It happens in parenting. It happens in education. It happens in any system of belief that becomes dogmatic.
You encourage someone to ask questions and think for themselves, until they ask a question that challenges the system itself. The system encourages curiosity until curiosity reaches its boundaries.
I don’t necessarily think that is deliberate hypocrisy. The authority may genuinely believe that certain things are settled and shouldn’t be questioned. But there is still a contradiction there. You can’t really encourage someone to think for themselves and then object when they think their way into a question you don’t want them to ask.
I see something similar in Noah. I don’t think the Ark makes sense as a literal historical account. The logistics alone are impossible. But I’m much more interested in what the story might be trying to teach rather than in simply proving that it couldn’t have happened.
I see Noah as potentially being a story about stewardship and our relationship with the natural world. Animals are interconnected. Predators regulate populations. Birds spread seeds. Bees pollinate. Animals provide food. Everything is connected, and humans are the species capable of overwhelming the system.
The plagues and Exodus make me think about identity at the level of a people. Eden can be understood as an individual leaving a protected world and becoming independent. Exodus may be something like that happening collectively. A people separates from the larger society and develops its own identity.
The Bible may also have helped preserve that identity. If a people loses its physical monuments, temples and political structures, a shared story can become a kind of portable homeland. The fact that the Bible survived for thousands of years doesn’t prove its supernatural claims, but it certainly demonstrates the cultural power of a shared narrative.
And this is what fascinates me most.
Every culture seems to have mythology. The Greeks had theirs. The Egyptians had theirs. Mesopotamia had the Epic of Gilgamesh. Ancient people didn’t necessarily make the same distinction between mythology and history that we do.
So why did some of these ancient stories become scripture?
Why did the Abrahamic traditions develop enormous bodies of religious literature that are treated by many people as uniquely authoritative?
It seems to me that these stories were ancient systems for trying to understand the world using the knowledge available to them at the time.
And underneath every story there seems to be a question.
Why are we here? Why do we suffer? Why do children grow up and leave? Why do people fight? How should we live together? What do we owe one another? What happens when we die?
Those questions haven’t gone away just because some of the ancient answers no longer make sense.
Which brings me to my point as to why I struggle with the idea that an ancient system of belief should remain fixed.
We accept evolution everywhere else because we can see the results.
Would you rather communicate by smoke signal or use a smartphone?
Would you rather travel by walking for days or on horseback, or travel by car, plane or train?
Would you rather have a doctor perform a magic ritual to cure your heart disease, or have that doctor use everything we have learned about nutrition, medicine and the human body?
Obviously, we want the accumulated knowledge of humanity because this very transfer of generational knowledge is what makes our species so unique. Every generation of human beings builds on the knowledge of the previous generations that pre-existed them. That alone is absolutely fascinating! Yet, we seem to allow that generational compounding of human knowledge through experience to inform every facet of our existence except when it comes to our ancient belief systems. Which, to me, is equally fascinating.
So why then do we adhere to the rules and dogmas of an old system of belief instead of allowing that system to evolve and advance through our individual and collective experiences across generations ?
I don’t think that means we should throw away ancient traditions. Quite the opposite. I think we should take them seriously enough to ask what they were trying to accomplish.
Maybe the goal isn’t to preserve the ancient answer.
Maybe it’s to preserve the question because the question belongs to us just as much as it belonged to them.
Preserve the purpose. Revise the mechanism and keep asking why.
One of the first things that struck me was the contradiction between Christian teachings and Christian history. Christianity teaches turning the other cheek and loving your enemies, yet Christian history contains enormous violence, including the Crusades and the sack of Constantinople. I keep coming back to the distance between a teaching and the way people actually use it.
I’ve also thought about hell. We talk about it as some future place of punishment, yet human beings have already demonstrated an extraordinary ability to create hell on earth.
Ingersoll says that reason is the highest attribute of man and that if God can communicate with humanity, it must be through reason. I really like that idea, but I also see what I think is an innocent flaw in it. Reason isn’t equally developed in everyone. We all have different knowledge, experience, abilities, incentives and biases. Reason can be manipulated.
Religion may partly solve that problem by taking complicated ideas about how to live and turning them into simple rules that people can understand. Love your neighbour is a good example. The danger comes when the rule becomes an authority in itself and people stop asking why.
Which brings me to the Garden of Eden.
I see Eden as a story about growing up. A child begins in a protected world where other people take care of them. Then comes curiosity, knowledge, awareness, independence and eventually responsibility.
I don’t see the pursuit of knowledge as humanity’s great mistake. I see it as an unavoidable part of being human.
Home is not where you find your agency. Home is where you develop the skills that allow you to exercise it.
As a parent, I understand the bittersweetness of that. I miss when my kids were little and cuddly, but I love watching them spread their wings. You want to protect them, but protecting them forever would prevent them from becoming capable themselves.
And one of the first questions a young child learns to ask is why.
That seems almost fundamental to being human. We want to understand. We want to know what is happening and why it is happening. And eventually that curiosity goes deeper than the answers provided by whoever is supposed to have the answers.
That creates a tension that isn’t limited to religion. It happens in parenting. It happens in education. It happens in any system of belief that becomes dogmatic.
You encourage someone to ask questions and think for themselves, until they ask a question that challenges the system itself. The system encourages curiosity until curiosity reaches its boundaries.
I don’t necessarily think that is deliberate hypocrisy. The authority may genuinely believe that certain things are settled and shouldn’t be questioned. But there is still a contradiction there. You can’t really encourage someone to think for themselves and then object when they think their way into a question you don’t want them to ask.
I see something similar in Noah. I don’t think the Ark makes sense as a literal historical account. The logistics alone are impossible. But I’m much more interested in what the story might be trying to teach rather than in simply proving that it couldn’t have happened.
I see Noah as potentially being a story about stewardship and our relationship with the natural world. Animals are interconnected. Predators regulate populations. Birds spread seeds. Bees pollinate. Animals provide food. Everything is connected, and humans are the species capable of overwhelming the system.
The plagues and Exodus make me think about identity at the level of a people. Eden can be understood as an individual leaving a protected world and becoming independent. Exodus may be something like that happening collectively. A people separates from the larger society and develops its own identity.
The Bible may also have helped preserve that identity. If a people loses its physical monuments, temples and political structures, a shared story can become a kind of portable homeland. The fact that the Bible survived for thousands of years doesn’t prove its supernatural claims, but it certainly demonstrates the cultural power of a shared narrative.
And this is what fascinates me most.
Every culture seems to have mythology. The Greeks had theirs. The Egyptians had theirs. Mesopotamia had the Epic of Gilgamesh. Ancient people didn’t necessarily make the same distinction between mythology and history that we do.
So why did some of these ancient stories become scripture?
Why did the Abrahamic traditions develop enormous bodies of religious literature that are treated by many people as uniquely authoritative?
It seems to me that these stories were ancient systems for trying to understand the world using the knowledge available to them at the time.
And underneath every story there seems to be a question.
Why are we here? Why do we suffer? Why do children grow up and leave? Why do people fight? How should we live together? What do we owe one another? What happens when we die?
Those questions haven’t gone away just because some of the ancient answers no longer make sense.
Which brings me to my point as to why I struggle with the idea that an ancient system of belief should remain fixed.
We accept evolution everywhere else because we can see the results.
Would you rather communicate by smoke signal or use a smartphone?
Would you rather travel by walking for days or on horseback, or travel by car, plane or train?
Would you rather have a doctor perform a magic ritual to cure your heart disease, or have that doctor use everything we have learned about nutrition, medicine and the human body?
Obviously, we want the accumulated knowledge of humanity because this very transfer of generational knowledge is what makes our species so unique. Every generation of human beings builds on the knowledge of the previous generations that pre-existed them. That alone is absolutely fascinating! Yet, we seem to allow that generational compounding of human knowledge through experience to inform every facet of our existence except when it comes to our ancient belief systems. Which, to me, is equally fascinating.
So why then do we adhere to the rules and dogmas of an old system of belief instead of allowing that system to evolve and advance through our individual and collective experiences across generations ?
I don’t think that means we should throw away ancient traditions. Quite the opposite. I think we should take them seriously enough to ask what they were trying to accomplish.
Maybe the goal isn’t to preserve the ancient answer.
Maybe it’s to preserve the question because the question belongs to us just as much as it belonged to them.
Preserve the purpose. Revise the mechanism and keep asking why.
April 18, 2024
Since Richard who also reviews this title refuses to allow comments on his review, I have to respond like this. You’re the one suffering from logical issues. Or will you do the ridiculous mental gymnastics I know evangelical or Jewish theologians do to try defend the absolute nonsense that is the Torah?
May 22, 2017
A pretty good book overall. Worth a read.
I have two small criticisms that I'll get out of the way first:
- Ingersoll was a little too caught up in a popular, naive belief in modern Progress and in what he imagined to be a vast gulf existing between his "civilized" modern America and the "barbarity" of the ancient world. Yes, there are things in the Pentateuch that people living in 19th century America and in America today would consider to be completely barbaric and unacceptable. However, the civilizations of America and Europe of Ingersoll's time (despite their scientific progress) were not exactly so "advanced" so as to be beyond being guilty of plenty of their own barbaric crimes! (Colonialism, the poor having little rights or protections and being reduced to virtual slavery by industrialists, subjugation of women, genocide of the Indians, horrible wars full of slaughter and other horrors, etc.)
- Ingersoll could be a bit of a prude. There's a kind of quaint Victorian squeamishness in some of his judgments. In chapter 20 of his book entitled "Faith in Filth," Ingersoll says that, "These stories [of the Pentateuch] are not redeemed by a single flash of wit or humor. They never rise above the dull details of stupid vice." I don't think this kind of blanket denouncement is fair. The Pentateuch is the product of a different civilization containing stories with earthy, bawdy, and black humor along with elements of grim realism. These are stories that reflect hard and unpleasant realities of life in a dangerous, precarious, often harsh world. As such, these stories don't offer a Disney version of life.
But keeping in mind that the Christian churches of Ingersoll's day claimed that the Bible to be the absolute greatest standard of decency and morality of all time, I can see why he would try and take an exaggerated counterposition. The stories of the Pentateuch contain many things that were not "morally decent" and "pure" according to the notions of 19th century American Christianity, and it's likely that Ingersoll wanted to make the discrepancy between what was preached about the Bible by churches and actual contents of the Pentateuch as clear as possible.
Now, on to the good:
- I love the opening chapters of this book. Chapter one's call for intellectual liberty and denouncement of the clergy and their religious dogmatism might be my favorite. Everything Ingersoll wrote about the religious fundamentalists of his day is just as applicable to the religious fundamentalists that exist today. Over one hundred years have passed between then and now, but so many Christians today are just as opposed to thinking beyond traditional beliefs. They are just as incapable or unwilling to reexamine and critique their beliefs with genuine intellectual rigor. They still operate by trying to scare and intimidate people into believing things rather than encouraging people to think for themselves.
- The other section of the book in which I think Ingersoll was at his best are the chapters that cover Noah's Ark, the Exodus from Egypt, and the Wandering in the Wilderness. Here he highlights various factual inconsistencies, contradictions, and leaps of logic within the biblical narratives that most of us would miss on a quick read. (The devil is in the details as they say!) For example, how could six hundred thousand Hebrew warriors have felt threatened by a mere 600 Egyptian chariots? And, furthermore, where did the horses to pull these chariots supposedly come from since only a couple of chapters previous to this the plagues had supposedly killed off all of the livestock of Egypt?
Ingersoll's careful reading and analysis demonstrates how what people might at first believe to be a somewhat plausible story that could have been based on some sort of real events that happened (minus certain fantastical embellishments) is actually pure fantasy. Entertaining, interesting fantasy, perhaps, but not something that should be confused with historical events anymore than what happens in other ancient stories like The Iliad or The Odyssey.
I have two small criticisms that I'll get out of the way first:
- Ingersoll was a little too caught up in a popular, naive belief in modern Progress and in what he imagined to be a vast gulf existing between his "civilized" modern America and the "barbarity" of the ancient world. Yes, there are things in the Pentateuch that people living in 19th century America and in America today would consider to be completely barbaric and unacceptable. However, the civilizations of America and Europe of Ingersoll's time (despite their scientific progress) were not exactly so "advanced" so as to be beyond being guilty of plenty of their own barbaric crimes! (Colonialism, the poor having little rights or protections and being reduced to virtual slavery by industrialists, subjugation of women, genocide of the Indians, horrible wars full of slaughter and other horrors, etc.)
- Ingersoll could be a bit of a prude. There's a kind of quaint Victorian squeamishness in some of his judgments. In chapter 20 of his book entitled "Faith in Filth," Ingersoll says that, "These stories [of the Pentateuch] are not redeemed by a single flash of wit or humor. They never rise above the dull details of stupid vice." I don't think this kind of blanket denouncement is fair. The Pentateuch is the product of a different civilization containing stories with earthy, bawdy, and black humor along with elements of grim realism. These are stories that reflect hard and unpleasant realities of life in a dangerous, precarious, often harsh world. As such, these stories don't offer a Disney version of life.
But keeping in mind that the Christian churches of Ingersoll's day claimed that the Bible to be the absolute greatest standard of decency and morality of all time, I can see why he would try and take an exaggerated counterposition. The stories of the Pentateuch contain many things that were not "morally decent" and "pure" according to the notions of 19th century American Christianity, and it's likely that Ingersoll wanted to make the discrepancy between what was preached about the Bible by churches and actual contents of the Pentateuch as clear as possible.
Now, on to the good:
- I love the opening chapters of this book. Chapter one's call for intellectual liberty and denouncement of the clergy and their religious dogmatism might be my favorite. Everything Ingersoll wrote about the religious fundamentalists of his day is just as applicable to the religious fundamentalists that exist today. Over one hundred years have passed between then and now, but so many Christians today are just as opposed to thinking beyond traditional beliefs. They are just as incapable or unwilling to reexamine and critique their beliefs with genuine intellectual rigor. They still operate by trying to scare and intimidate people into believing things rather than encouraging people to think for themselves.
- The other section of the book in which I think Ingersoll was at his best are the chapters that cover Noah's Ark, the Exodus from Egypt, and the Wandering in the Wilderness. Here he highlights various factual inconsistencies, contradictions, and leaps of logic within the biblical narratives that most of us would miss on a quick read. (The devil is in the details as they say!) For example, how could six hundred thousand Hebrew warriors have felt threatened by a mere 600 Egyptian chariots? And, furthermore, where did the horses to pull these chariots supposedly come from since only a couple of chapters previous to this the plagues had supposedly killed off all of the livestock of Egypt?
Ingersoll's careful reading and analysis demonstrates how what people might at first believe to be a somewhat plausible story that could have been based on some sort of real events that happened (minus certain fantastical embellishments) is actually pure fantasy. Entertaining, interesting fantasy, perhaps, but not something that should be confused with historical events anymore than what happens in other ancient stories like The Iliad or The Odyssey.
July 1, 2011
"He who endeavors to control the mind by force is a tyrant, and he who submits is a slave."
Robert Ingersoll goes through the entirety of Pentateuch with wit, humor, and precision taking the books apart piece by piece, shedding the light of reason upon its many absurdities. Pointing out mathematical impossibility after moral obscurantism, Ingersoll employs a natural, flowing prose which demonstrates why he deserved his reputation for oratory prowess. He traveled the country extensively by train and, unlike today, was very well known. He had been heard and seen by more Americans than anyone else until the invention of radio and television.
He is well worth reading today, particularly if you're interested in really moving an audience by demonstrating to them how one can truly appreciate what the natural world has to offer on its own, without the illusory comfort of myth and miracle.
Robert Ingersoll goes through the entirety of Pentateuch with wit, humor, and precision taking the books apart piece by piece, shedding the light of reason upon its many absurdities. Pointing out mathematical impossibility after moral obscurantism, Ingersoll employs a natural, flowing prose which demonstrates why he deserved his reputation for oratory prowess. He traveled the country extensively by train and, unlike today, was very well known. He had been heard and seen by more Americans than anyone else until the invention of radio and television.
He is well worth reading today, particularly if you're interested in really moving an audience by demonstrating to them how one can truly appreciate what the natural world has to offer on its own, without the illusory comfort of myth and miracle.
September 2, 2026
Book 15 in the Lineal Challenge (one book per year of publication, 1865-2000)! Freethinkers unite!
[The clergy] must show that misery fits the good for heaven while happiness prepares the bad for hell; that the wicked get all their good things in this life, and the good all their evil; that in this world God punishes the people he loves, and in the next, the ones he hates; that happiness makes us bad here, but not in heaven; that pain makes us good here, but not in hell.
People do not persecute each other on account of disagreements in mathematics. Families are not divided about botany, and astronomy does not even tend to make a man hate his father and mother. It is what people do not know, that they persecute each other about.
Theology is not what we know about God, but what we do not know about Nature.
It hardly seems reasonable that God, if there is one, would either stop the globe, change the constitution of the atmosphere or the nature of light simply to afford Joshua and opportunity to kill people on that day when he could just as easily have waited until the next morning. It certainly cannot be very gratifying to God for us to believe such childish things.
The "sabbath" was born of asceticism, hatred of human joy, fanaticism, ignorance, egotism of priests and the cowardice of the people. This day, for thousands of years, has been dedicated to superstition, to the dissemination of mistakes, and the establishment of falsehoods. Every Freethinker, as a matter of duty, should violate this day. He should assert his independence, and do all within his power to wrest the sabbath from the gloomy church and give it back to liberty and joy. Freethinkers should make the sabbath a day of mirth and music; a day to spend with wife and child - a day of games, and books, and dreams - a day to put fresh flowers above our sleeping dead - a day of memory and hope, of love and rest.
It is impossible to conceive of a more thoroughly despicable, hateful, and arrogant being, than the Jewish god. He is without a redeeming feature. In the mythology of the world he has no parallel. He, only, is never touched by agony and tears. He delights only in blood and pain. Human affections are naught to him. He cares for neither love nor music, beauty nor joy. A false friend, an unjust judge, a braggart, hypocrite, and tyrant, sincere in hatred, jealous, vain, and revengeful, false in promise, honest in curse, suspicious, ignorant, and changeable, infamous and hideous:- such is the God of the Pentateuch.
Think of taking up some ragged rock and hurling it against the white bosom filled with love for you; and when you saw oozing from the bruised lips of the death wound, the red current of her sweet life - think of looking up to heaven and receiving the congratulations of the infinite fiend whose commandment you have obeyed.
August 4, 2023
"Some Mistakes of Moses" is a controversial work written by Robert Ingersoll, an American lawyer and orator, in 1879. In this book, Ingersoll scrutinizes and challenges various aspects of the Bible, particularly those attributed to the prophet Moses. He examines the religious beliefs, historical accuracy, and moral teachings found within the biblical texts, with a particular focus on the Old Testament. There’s currently a free audiobook version of it on Spotify, which is how I read it.
Respecting the personal nature of religious beliefs, I aim to maintain an academic tone in this review, avoiding any intention to offend or challenge the beliefs of those reading it. My focus is on discussing the book's content with objectivity and critical analysis, while acknowledging that interpretations of religious texts can vary greatly among individuals.
In the book, Ingersoll reveals that he had given a lecture called 'Some Mistakes of Moses' multiple times without writing it down. Consequently, misrepresentations of his words appeared in the press. This book serves as his written version, aiming to set the record straight and clarify his intentions.
Ingersoll challenges the notion of a literal interpretation of biblical stories, particularly those of the first five books of the Bible, that contain stories such as Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve. Ingersoll meticulously dissects these narratives, subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny and critical analysis. He points out what he classifies as inherent inconsistencies, contradictions, and implausibilities within these stories, which he says challenge their credibility as historical or scientific truths.
Throughout the book, Ingersoll adopts at times a slightly condescending tone towards believers, but it is not overly contemptuous. Instead, it appears to stem from his passion for this subject. While his tone might not resonate with everyone, it seems to mostly align with his mission of encouraging readers to reevaluate their beliefs critically.
In conclusion, 'Some Mistakes of Moses' by Robert G. Ingersoll is a thought-provoking critique of biblical stories and religious beliefs. Although it may not be for everyone due to its subject matter and tone, the book provides a compelling perspective.
Respecting the personal nature of religious beliefs, I aim to maintain an academic tone in this review, avoiding any intention to offend or challenge the beliefs of those reading it. My focus is on discussing the book's content with objectivity and critical analysis, while acknowledging that interpretations of religious texts can vary greatly among individuals.
In the book, Ingersoll reveals that he had given a lecture called 'Some Mistakes of Moses' multiple times without writing it down. Consequently, misrepresentations of his words appeared in the press. This book serves as his written version, aiming to set the record straight and clarify his intentions.
Ingersoll challenges the notion of a literal interpretation of biblical stories, particularly those of the first five books of the Bible, that contain stories such as Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve. Ingersoll meticulously dissects these narratives, subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny and critical analysis. He points out what he classifies as inherent inconsistencies, contradictions, and implausibilities within these stories, which he says challenge their credibility as historical or scientific truths.
Throughout the book, Ingersoll adopts at times a slightly condescending tone towards believers, but it is not overly contemptuous. Instead, it appears to stem from his passion for this subject. While his tone might not resonate with everyone, it seems to mostly align with his mission of encouraging readers to reevaluate their beliefs critically.
In conclusion, 'Some Mistakes of Moses' by Robert G. Ingersoll is a thought-provoking critique of biblical stories and religious beliefs. Although it may not be for everyone due to its subject matter and tone, the book provides a compelling perspective.
July 2, 2024
Perhaps even more relevant now than when he originally wrote it.
July 27, 2012
I read all of Ingersoll's writing and speeches over the course of a few days, so I can't really remember the books apart: I will treat them all as one big entity.
Ingersoll was a magnificent man ahead of his time. Not really because he had the intellectual horsepower to successfully evaluate the truth value of religious claims - since, let's admit it, an intelligent child has enough brain cells to do that -, but because he had the intellectual courage not only to make these evaluations, but also to try to convince people and publicly argue against their bullshit. For that he deserves our adoration.
His thoughts are rather lucid, his arguments are well structured. If you are a theist, and are looking for basic arguments that criticize your beliefs, Ingersoll is a good read. If you are a junior member of the atheist club or are interested in the history of nonbelief, you'll find these things interesting. But even if you are an eye-patched, scarface veteran of the Atheist-Theist Wars, you'll find Ingersoll entertaining, so grab one of his books, listen to one of his speeches, and enjoy.
Ingersoll was a magnificent man ahead of his time. Not really because he had the intellectual horsepower to successfully evaluate the truth value of religious claims - since, let's admit it, an intelligent child has enough brain cells to do that -, but because he had the intellectual courage not only to make these evaluations, but also to try to convince people and publicly argue against their bullshit. For that he deserves our adoration.
His thoughts are rather lucid, his arguments are well structured. If you are a theist, and are looking for basic arguments that criticize your beliefs, Ingersoll is a good read. If you are a junior member of the atheist club or are interested in the history of nonbelief, you'll find these things interesting. But even if you are an eye-patched, scarface veteran of the Atheist-Theist Wars, you'll find Ingersoll entertaining, so grab one of his books, listen to one of his speeches, and enjoy.
November 12, 2013
I became aware of this book through this thread, and I must say that I'm astonished that I had never been acquainted with the author or his work before. For a book written in 1879, it is remarkably contemporary, filled with wit, irony and sarcasm in its dismantling of the first 5 books of the Old Testament. His incredulous and chilling portrait of Jehovah (Yahweh) is in complete agreement with that of Dawkins in THE GOD DELUSION--but 134 years earlier! Such apostasy was probably much more common than we think today, but its expression in an earlier time was dangerous to the life of the heretic. Ingersoll's analysis of the scientific inaccuracies of the two creation stories in Genesis alone is worth the price of the book. He even discredits the idea that the 7 days of creation were not ordinary days, but days that may have lasted centuries or millennia.
May 22, 2015
I found this book most edifying. In addition to the logical discussion of the illogical in the OLD TESTAMENT, the simple explanation of what exactly is written as the word of God was very illuminating. As a former Catholic school pupil, my religious education consisted mainly of the parables and miracles in the NEW TESTAMENT and the Baltimore Catechism. The OLD TESTAMENT was just Bible stories and they were glossed over. With good reason, I now see. If I were to enter some quotations, I'd have to quote the whole book, but I did especially like some of his points--Ingersoll predicts that churches will will divide as sharply upon political as upon theological questions; and believers in miracles should not endeavor to explain them; all miracles are unreasonable.
February 19, 2013
Simply brilliant. Ingersoll eloquently lays out the arguments that ought to be apparent to anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated into these things from a very young age. In doing so, he helps point out the obvious moral deficiencies of the Pentateuch to those of us who had been blinded by faith into accepting the stories at face value. One is left thinking maybe Bishop Marcion had a point...
September 26, 2017
"Read" via the recording available on LibriVox, by Margaret Espaillat.
By all accounts, Robert Ingersoll was a man of great wit. Margaret Espaillat's dry delivery of his words may not do his humor great justice, but I was entertained nonetheless. I particularly liked the passage reproduced below, smiling out loud at, "Laws were made against murder, because a very large majority of people have always objected to being murdered." As an atheist, I am repeatedly dumfounded by the questions: If you do not believe in God, why would you be good? What keeps you from murdering, or stealing? How do you know right from wrong? (As if all of us are just a few lines in the Bible from butchering our neighbors, or our families.)
Excerpt from Some Mistakes of Moses, by Robert G. Ingersoll:
"It has been contended for many years that the ten commandments are the foundation of all ideas of justice and of law. Eminent jurists have bowed to popular prejudice and deformed their works by statements to the effect that the Mosaic laws are the fountains from which spring all ideas of right and wrong. Nothing can be more stupidly false than such assertions.
"Thousands of years before Moses was born, the Egyptians had a code of laws. They had laws against blasphemy, murder, adultery, larceny, perjury, laws for the collection of debts, the enforcement of contracts, the ascertainment of damages, the redemption of property pawned, and upon nearly every subject of human interest. the Egyptian code was far better than the Mosaic.
"Laws spring from the instinct of self-preservation. Industry objected to supporting idleness, and laws were made against theft. LAWS WERE MADE AGAINST MURDER, BECAUSE A VERY LARGE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS OBJECTED TO BEING MURDERED. (My emphasis.) All fundamental laws were born simply of the instinct of self-defense. Long before the Jewish savages assembled at the foot of Sinai, laws had been made and enforced, not only in Egypt and India, but by every tribe that ever existed.
"It is impossible for human beings to exist together without certain rules of conduct...."
By all accounts, Robert Ingersoll was a man of great wit. Margaret Espaillat's dry delivery of his words may not do his humor great justice, but I was entertained nonetheless. I particularly liked the passage reproduced below, smiling out loud at, "Laws were made against murder, because a very large majority of people have always objected to being murdered." As an atheist, I am repeatedly dumfounded by the questions: If you do not believe in God, why would you be good? What keeps you from murdering, or stealing? How do you know right from wrong? (As if all of us are just a few lines in the Bible from butchering our neighbors, or our families.)
Excerpt from Some Mistakes of Moses, by Robert G. Ingersoll:
"It has been contended for many years that the ten commandments are the foundation of all ideas of justice and of law. Eminent jurists have bowed to popular prejudice and deformed their works by statements to the effect that the Mosaic laws are the fountains from which spring all ideas of right and wrong. Nothing can be more stupidly false than such assertions.
"Thousands of years before Moses was born, the Egyptians had a code of laws. They had laws against blasphemy, murder, adultery, larceny, perjury, laws for the collection of debts, the enforcement of contracts, the ascertainment of damages, the redemption of property pawned, and upon nearly every subject of human interest. the Egyptian code was far better than the Mosaic.
"Laws spring from the instinct of self-preservation. Industry objected to supporting idleness, and laws were made against theft. LAWS WERE MADE AGAINST MURDER, BECAUSE A VERY LARGE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS OBJECTED TO BEING MURDERED. (My emphasis.) All fundamental laws were born simply of the instinct of self-defense. Long before the Jewish savages assembled at the foot of Sinai, laws had been made and enforced, not only in Egypt and India, but by every tribe that ever existed.
"It is impossible for human beings to exist together without certain rules of conduct...."
Read
May 22, 2021In this book Ingersoll takes the reader through some of the stories in the Old Testament and tries to show that they contradict logic or the facts of physics. He also tells about how some of the themes in the Old Testament do not align with contemporary human rights. With various examples he argues that the book must be a product of a human rather than a supernatural intelligence.
I find it specially remarkable that such open criticism to one of the most followed religions of the world could be made more than a century ago. It tells about the toleration of the society that Ingersoll resided in.
I find it specially remarkable that such open criticism to one of the most followed religions of the world could be made more than a century ago. It tells about the toleration of the society that Ingersoll resided in.
November 2, 2023
The Mistake of Moses
I wish I had discover Robert Ingersoll decades ago. Somehow he has evaded my attention until just recently when I happened to stumble upon one of his essays. I was immediately drawn to his simple and straightforward writing style and wasn't like any philosopher I had read previously. He presents himself as an adversary to the bigotry that religion has created but it never spills over into his own ideas. This book focuses on the Book of Moses and all its ridiculous fairy tales. One doesn't need to be a scholar to understand this. He directs his observations towards the common reader and not to academics.
I wish I had discover Robert Ingersoll decades ago. Somehow he has evaded my attention until just recently when I happened to stumble upon one of his essays. I was immediately drawn to his simple and straightforward writing style and wasn't like any philosopher I had read previously. He presents himself as an adversary to the bigotry that religion has created but it never spills over into his own ideas. This book focuses on the Book of Moses and all its ridiculous fairy tales. One doesn't need to be a scholar to understand this. He directs his observations towards the common reader and not to academics.
May 24, 2024
There is no atheism in this book, nor is there skepticism. There is only a startlingly blunt (and at times quite humorous) analysis of the stories found within the pentateuch (the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) and the rational conclusion that, IF there exists a God as defined by Christian religions, then that God simply would not (and could not) have inspired such stories as are found therein.
April 12, 2018
Agree or disagree with his message one has to be in awe of Ingersolls stellar writing. From the first to last sentence, he fails to write a bad or i even dare say a average sentence. Rarely is it a case that a amazing mind harmonizes with breathtaking writing style, with Mr Ingersoll that is the case.
March 13, 2022
Ingersoll's "Some Mistakes of Moses" is a controversial work that is riddled with logical fallacies to an almost laughable extent. Ingersoll's book masquerades as scholarship, but depends on his powerful wit rather than facts or any logical rigor.
Somewhat entertaining, but don't take it seriously.
Somewhat entertaining, but don't take it seriously.
January 12, 2018
If you want to have a truly in-depth look at the underlying issues of Christianity and the stories of Jesus, you won’t be left wanting with this book.
December 27, 2018
Has sliced and diced the pentateuch content. However, i feel the author has dragged it a bit.
February 15, 2020
I like the way he thinks and reasons and presents things, and takes things seriously and describes what that looks like.
March 1, 2022
A cogent debunking of religion.
December 2, 2022
Pretty pretty pretty good.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews