6 "Facts" You Think Are In the Bible....But Aren't

It's no secret that biblical literacy is at an all-time low. This is not surprising, given that cultural trends show many people leaving Christianity for atheism, and many others embracing a "spiritual but not religious" mindset. You probably can't fool the average Christian into thinking that the Bible says, "God helps those who help themselves," or "Cleanliness is next to godliness." BUT there are some common  "facts" and stories that regularly make their way into sermons, Bible studies, and conversations among otherwise biblically literate Christians. Here are 6 facts you think are in the Bible but aren't:

1. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. 

Undoubtedly one of the most important figures in the New Testament is Mary Magdalene. She was a friend of Jesus, one of the faithful who stayed by Him during His crucifixion, and the first person to whom Jesus appeared after His resurrection. From historical art pieces to the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar to the best-selling book The DaVinci Code  to modern movies and television, she is almost always portrayed as a former prostitute. There is one problem with this assumption: the Bible never identifies her as such.   

It's difficult to determine where this faulty characterization came from, but it was most likely from a confused reading of Luke 7:36-50. This passage describes a "sinful woman" who breaks a jar of expensive perfume on Jesus' feet, wipes them with her hair and kisses them. Although the Bible never gives the woman's name or even implies it is Mary, the two women have become conflated throughout church history. (1)

Mary definitely had a rough past— she was delivered of seven demons, according to Luke 8:1-3. However, of the twelve times she is mentioned in the Gospels, not one suggests that she was a prostitute. (2)

2. Satan was the worship leader in heaven. 

If you grew up in church and went to youth group, you most likely heard this one somewhere along the way. The problem is that it isn't in the Bible. This misunderstanding probably comes from Ezekiel 28:13, in which the king of Tyre (whom many theologians believe is describing Satan) is characterized as being covered with many precious stones and gold. The New King James Version mentions "timbrels and pipes" as well—although the exact meaning of this text is a bit uncertain.  

​There are

 only a few passages of Scripture that are believed to describe Satan (3), and this is the only one that mentions what might be interpreted as musical instruments. Although Satan is described as being "the anointed cherub," and "the model of perfection" before his fall, there is no reason to assume he was a musician…let alone the worship leader in heaven. 

3. Jesus was born in a stable.

I know I know…now I'm messing with virtually every Christmas pageant, greeting card, and nativity scene you've encountered since childhood. But there's that pesky little fact that the Bible doesn't actually mention a stable, or a cave, as early church tradition suggests.(4)  The second chapter of Luke tells us that there was "no room at the inn." The Greek word that we translate as "inn" in English can also be translated as "guest room." In fact, Jesus uses the same word in Luke 22:11 in reference to the Upper Room, the site of the Last Supper. 

The Bible mentions that  that Jesus was laid in a manger (a type of feeding trough for animals.) So it had to be in a stable, right? Actually, it would have been customary for Mary and Joseph to stay with Joseph's relatives in Bethlehem rather than an inn. With the "guest room" occupied, Jesus was probably born on the lower level of the house, where animals were brought in at night to be kept safe and warm. (5)

4.  Moses was a stutterer.

Much ink has been spilled over whether or not Moses had a stutter or some other kind of speech impediment, or if he was, in fact, quite a profoundly talented orator.  This speculation all revolves around Exodus 4:10 in which Moses questions his own competency: "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.” We must bear in mind that Moses was expressing his own insecurity—not necessarily reflecting the reality of his abilities. In fact, just prior to his death at the hands of an angry mob, the martyr Stephen described Moses as "mighty in his words and deeds" in Acts 7:22. Good cases can be made on both sides, but the Bible never explicitly states that Moses was a stutterer. 5.  Jesus was 33 years old when He died.

You've probably always believed that Jesus was born in the year 1 AD, but this is based on a mistake scholars made when they originally came up with the BC/AD system. Matthew 2:1 tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, but Herod died in 4 BC, so Jesus would have been born before that—somewhere between 6-4 BC. This made Him at least 4 years old by the year 1 AD. (6)

The Bible doesn't actually state that Jesus was precisely 33 years old when He died. The age of 33 is often assumed because Luke 3:23 tells us that Jesus was "about" 30 years old when He started His ministry, (which could be rounded down from anywhere in His early to mid- thirties.) Most scholars agree that He died in 30 or 33 AD, and that His ministry lasted about 3 1/2 years. So He was probably somewhere between 36-39 when He actually died. 

​
6. Jesus changed Saul's name to Paul. 

From time to time throughout biblical history, God changed people's names.  For example, he re-named Abram as "Abraham," and Jacob as "Israel." Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. Sometimes in sermons and Bible studies, it is noted that Jesus changed Saul the persecutor's name to Paul, the Apostle, as some kind of a symbolic declaration of Paul's new status in God's kingdom. However, that's not quite how it happened. 

Spoiler alert. It wasn't Jesus who changed Saul's name…it was Luke. The physician, meticulous historian, and writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts is the one responsible for first referring to Saul as "Paul." Jesus did say, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" when Saul was on his way to Damascus in Acts 9:4. But Acts 13:13 is the first time the new name is used, and Luke notes in Act 13:9 that "Saul is also sometimes called Paul." In other words, Luke didn't actually change the name—Saul and Paul were used interchangeably to describe the same man. "Saul" was derived from the Old Testament Saul—the first king of Israel and "Paul" was simply his Greek name. It's likely that Luke switched to using the Greek name "Paul" once Paul's ministry among primarily Greek-speaking Gentiles began. 

What other "facts" are often misattributed to the Bible? Please comment below! 

Hi, i guess the most common done by atheists, scholars, movie writers, songwriters and even theologists:
Adam and Eve did not eat an apple! The bible talks about a “forbidden fruit”, but never an apple. Maybe there’s some other translation or perhaps some obscure verse somewhere else, but on the story in genesis not.

Nope, there’s no weird translation or obscure verse, it’s nowhere in the Bible. You are totally correct Luis, this is a great example of what Alisa is talking about.

Yes, its a good thing to consider the difference. It helps get a better interpretation of what’s relevant. My example of course was simple and not very relevant, unless there was some sort of apple sect.
For example, some kid went nuts in our church the other day because we were watching the “bible” series as a study. At some point in the Abraham episode, when he doesn’t sacrifice his son, they find a lamb to sacrifice. The Biblical text says that the lamb was entangled in a bush, and then abraham saw lt and offered it as sacrifice. However, in the episode the lamb was attached to a pole with a rope. The guy was offended by the lack of accuracy. Of course the thing wasn’t in a bush in the episode, lambs are not well know for being very good actors and memorizing lines. Also puttingn a lamb in a thorny bush for the sake of accuracy could get the people in trouble for animal abuse.
The fact was different but the concept was the same.

God provided a Ram, not a Lamb, for Abraham. Abraham told Isaac that God would provide a sacrificial Lamb, which He did, and that was Jesus. Gen 22:13

I don't entirely agree with your assessment here (and that's ok, I may just be wrong!), but you make some good points.

Thanks for the clarification, Alisa, and for reminding us to do a better job in reading comprehension! I've been guilty of passing on at least one of these at some point in my life…

I think it's always been confusing for people with Mary, Mary of Bethany, the sinner woman, and Mary Magdalene. Sometimes you gotta wish they had separate names.

That was kinda out of left field, lol.

But did you really have your son circumcised for *religious* reasons? I mean, the practice has religious origins but nowadays it seems we just do it out of a sort of cultural habit.

No, it wasn't the *only* reason but it was a reason in a long line of lies I was fed as to why it should be done. I stupidly believed, and trusted, my doctor without doing any real research.

My comments are more questions. I've heard ministers say that Joseph–Jesus' earthly father–may very well have been a "dead-beat dad". Also, that Jesus is tatted. Are either of these true?

Hey Missy, so most of the examples that have been given, including Alisa's, have been great examples even though almost all of them have some basis either through a very loose interpretation of a verse or a handful of verses, a loose interpretation of historical facts outside of Scripture, or church tradition. Alisa even pointed out how the example I gave is not an unreasonable interpretation of Rev 12:4 and I would essentially agree with her, but still maintain that we should be far more careful about how we use the term "biblical fact." Even the example from Heather, and I so feel for her and agree that she was on some level lied to, is not completely without foundation. If her doctor was Jewish I could see how he could come to this interpretation even though I believe it to be terribly wrong. Even some Christians believe that circumcision and other old covenant rites are still binding today in the sense that they are required for proper obedience to God. I think they are quite mistaken, but they are not without any foundation whatsoever. Now if they said those things are absolutely necessary for salvation then we are talking about something else entirely. Such a position would be heretical from a Christian standpoint as it would be so opposed to New Testament teaching. Hence, some of the examples given are reasonable interpretations, but they are still not facts. Others are not reasonable interpretations, although I think it would be a stretch to say that they are completely unreasonable. With all of that said, the two examples you gave really would in my estimation fall under the category of completely unreasonable interpretations. There is literally nothing to support them. But these examples are used by so few that I don't think they are really what Alisa was driving at in her article, but she of course could answer that way better than me. But these were still great questions to ask because these kind of somewhat "loopy" interpretations are out there and they are terribly unhelpful and so you are right to be skeptical and to ask. Let me know if any of that didn't make sense or if you disagree with anything. Thanks Missy!

Your pastors may mean well, but it doesn't sound as though they are familiar with any recognizable Church history. You might want to check out the historic account of Joseph that has been maintained since the time of Christ by the Orthodox Church. Joseph was absolutely no dead beat dad, but was indeed old by the time of his betrothal to Mary. He died prior to Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.

Thank you Alisa for sharing this! I grew up with many of these same "facts" being taught and never once thought to question them. This was very eye opening. Thank you!

I like this ,it causes us to search the scriptures, and not just assume what we have heard through traditions , let us remember the fall of all mankind happened because of one word ( not) God said ( thou shalt surely die) and satan told them ( thou shalt not surely die),kjv , it is so important that we listen to the voice of truth , and not the lies of the enemy !!!! thank you ALISA, for challenging us to be alert , and aware, and to be vigilant in our studies of the word of God !!!God bless you sister!!!

John 12:3 says "then took Mary a pound of ointment". If you read John 12:1-8, you can see it is the story from Luke, clearly identifying her as Mary, though not a prostitute.

Hi Jaime… yes that was Mary, the sister of Martha who anointed Jesus in John 12. The woman in Luke is described as a “sinful woman,” who anointed Jesus at the home of Simon… two different events.

I don't think Joseph was a dead beat dad. He was a good man it appears from Scripture. He did not want to publicly embarrass Mary when she told him she was pregnant. He obeyed God and took her as his wife at a time when doing so would cause social rejection. He was noble to maintain her purity till Jesus was born. He is the one to whom God told to name the baby Jesus. He is also the one to whom God would tell when to escape so that the baby would not be hurt and he would protect the baby. He stood by Mary at a time when it was incomprehensible how a virgin birth had occurred, and it was known to all that he was not the father of the baby and he worked hard as a carpenter. What is said is that he died leaving Mary widowed.

Nearly every Sunday school class shows Joseph of the Old Testament in a rainbow coat. If you look up the original Hebrew, the coat of many colors was special not for its color, but for its style of long arm sleeves, symbolic of a leader.
I’ve also heard (but not researched myself) that the cock that crowed before Peter denied Christ 3 times was referring to the alarm (called a cock) that they sounded every 3 hours in that culture.
Also every reference to the animals on board Noah’s ark is 2 of a kind, though it was 7 of the clean animals 😊
Lastly, I recently learned the meaning behind the verses spoken by Jesus “I go to prepare a place for you… their are many mansions in my Fathers house.” Mansion literally means “abode” or “dwelling.” In the Jewish culture, when a man became engaged, he would add a room onto his father’s house, then bring his bride to live there (not many had the money for their own land and house). Therefore Jesus is the groom and His bride is the church, and He goes to Heaven to prepare a place for us to live with His Father! Makes much more sense than walking away from that Scripture thinking every believer has a “mansion” waiting for them 😊

Good one, Marina! I actually wrote about that here: https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/5-apologetics-questions-every-christian-should-learn-how-to-answer-christmas-edition

Josephus recorded a number of celestial and historical events surrounding Herod's death. Combined with The Babylonian Chronology, the timeline would more likely line up with the events in 2BC ish. Jesus Christ:Our Promised Seed by Dr. VP Weirwille,puts it together nicely

Ahhh! Alisa! You've ruined one of my favorites: that Lucifer was an angel with special musical ability, even possibly the leader of the angelic choirs. I still believe he uses the power of music and its ability to influence people but I will concede that it's not stated clearly in scripture that he had any special musical ability or position. Darn! Ha! I have one that many Christians believe is in the Bible but which is actually a quote by Gandhi: "Love the sinner, hate the sin." While this idea is certainly expressed by scripture the saying itself is not scripture. And, in fact, it is often used as a way to keep people comfortable in sin, instead of hating sin so that we repent of it.