What Qualifies as a Bad Bible Entry?

Core standard

An entry must identify the relevant text or claim, state the alleged problem precisely, supply enough context to evaluate it, examine the strongest available evidence, consider serious alternative explanations, and classify the result no more strongly than the evidence permits.

Not every difference is a contradiction. A case may instead be a narrative inconsistency, historical tension, textual variant, difference of emphasis, theological disagreement, failed prediction, anachronism, or later reinterpretation.

Inclusion criteria

An issue qualifies when it is:

• Specific: It identifies a defined passage, comparison, historical claim, interpretive claim, or ethical problem.
• Textually grounded: It connects to identifiable wording, a textual witness, or a documented later use of the text.
• Analytically meaningful: Resolving it materially affects how a passage, event, doctrine, or apologetic claim should be understood.
• Researchable: Relevant evidence can be located and evaluated.
• Fairly stated: It does not depend on an obviously implausible reading or quotation taken out of context.
• Classifiable: It fits an existing research category or justifies a new one.
• Citable: Its primary evidence and scholarly sources can be identified.

Issues that may qualify

Exclusion criteria

Do not publish an item as an entry when it:

• Merely expresses dislike, disbelief, or outrage without an analyzable claim.
• Depends on an untraceable meme or paraphrase.
• Treats every difference as a contradiction.
• Assumes one modern English word exhausts an ancient term.
• Ignores an evident genre distinction, metaphor, rhetoric, or context.
• Relies entirely on a fringe claim when stronger evidence is available.
• Cannot be independently checked.
• Concerns a general doctrine without a specific text or documented interpretive claim.
• Duplicates an existing entry without adding a materially distinct question.
• Insulates a predetermined conclusion from contrary evidence.

Classification rules

Type — What kind of finding is it?

• Direct Contradiction: Two claims cannot both be true in the same relevant sense, time, and respect.
• Inconsistency: The accounts resist coherent combination but may not form a strict logical contradiction.
• Narrative Inconsistency: Details, sequence, characterization, or plot claims differ across narratives.
• Difference of Emphasis: Accounts frame material differently without a substantive incompatibility.
• Historical Tension: A claim conflicts with or sits uneasily beside available historical evidence.
• Anachronism: A text places something in an historically implausible period.
• Textual Variant: Surviving witnesses preserve materially different readings.
• Failed Prediction: A sufficiently definite prediction does not occur as stated within its relevant conditions or timeframe.
• Later Reinterpretation: A later text repurposes an earlier one beyond its probable original context.
• Theological Disagreement: Biblical texts express materially different theological positions.
• Unresolved: Current evidence does not justify a more specific conclusion.

Assessment — How strong is the alleged problem?

• Strong: Well supported; leading resolutions conflict substantially with the evidence or require special pleading.
• Moderate: A real problem probably exists, but plausible qualifications remain.
• Weak: Worth explaining, but the evidence favors a reasonable resolution.
• Not A Discrepancy: The allegation dissolves when the language, genre, context, or evidence is properly considered.
• Unresolved: Evidence is insufficient or too evenly divided.

Scholarly Position — How widely is the interpretation held?

• Broad Consensus
• Majority
• Significant Minority
• Disputed
• Speculative
• Traditional Claim

Minimum evidence requirements

Every publishable entry should include:

• Principal passage or passages.
• Translation or edition used for displayed wording.
• Sufficient literary context.
• A neutral statement of the alleged problem.
• The strongest serious resolution or counterargument.
• Relevant textual, linguistic, historical, archaeological, or comparative evidence.
• At least one verifiable scholarly source for specialist claims.
• A conclusion matched to the evidence.
• A recorded review date.

Lexical claims should examine usage in context and use scholarly lexicons. Text-critical claims should identify witnesses or a critical apparatus. Historical claims must distinguish absence of evidence from evidence of absence. Scientific comparisons must justify applying modern categories to ancient genres.

Publication gate

Provisional and rejected entries

Captured leads may remain in the private research database before they meet publication requirements. A rejected allegation may still become a useful Not A Discrepancy investigation. Rejection from public publication means that the current version fails the evidentiary or editorial standard—not necessarily that the question was irrational.

Corrections

New evidence may change an entry's type, assessment, scholarly-position label, wording, or publication status. Submit documented challenges through Corrections and Contributions.

Related pages

• How to Read Bad Bible
• Glossary and Abbreviations