Dear Kathy,
Since you graciously agreed (in our recent conversation) to let me present you with some examples of the Bible’s problems, I decided to do it in this way so it would have its own comment thread. As I’ve said, when I was a Christian, one strike against the Bible was not enough to shake my faith — maybe it only seemed problematic, maybe there was an explanation we hadn’t uncovered yet, maybe the historical accounts were wrong, etc. But as the problems began to mount up, I reached a point where I could no longer deny the fact that the Bible had actual errors.
A couple of suggestions before we begin. Try to be as open-minded about this as possible. As you go through these examples, ask yourself if God would allow such problems to exist in a message that he wanted all people to accept and believe? According to the Bible, whenever God sent someone a message, whether it was Pharaoh or Gideon or Nebuchadnezzar or Paul, they had no question whom it was from. They didn’t always follow it, as we see with people like Pharaoh and Solomon, but they didn’t question the source of the message or what it stated. So why would God operate differently today? Why would he want us to be so confused about his message that we’re able to question whether or not it’s really from him?
Another thing to keep in mind is that even if you come to the conclusion that the Bible has actual problems, that doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. There are a number of Christians who don’t believe in inerrancy. And even if you lose faith in the Christian god, that still doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. A number of people, including several of our founding fathers, were deists. I have a lot of sympathy for that view and plan to do a post on it soon.
Some of the items listed here will have links that provide additional information, especially when the issue is too detailed to list here. I hope that you’ll check out those links, since some of them are quite significant points. And regardless of how this article strikes you, I hope it will help serve as a great springboard to launch you into your own research.
Some of the Problems
Creation
The creation accounts in Genesis do not match what we’ve learned through science. This isn’t shocking news, but it bears looking into. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory had nothing to do with my deconversion, but I’ve learned more about both since leaving Christianity. It’s shocking how much misinformation I had been operating under. Not to say that all Christians are that way — that was simply my experience. But the evidence for both evolution and the Big Bang are far more substantial than I had ever realized. Two good resources for learning more about these issues are the following (though I’d also recommend checking out the recent Cosmos series, as well as some of the PBS NOVA specials):
Another problem with the creation accounts is that Genesis 1 says that plants and trees were made on the 3rd day, while man was made on the 6th. But Genesis 2:5-9 says that man was created before there were any plants or trees in the land. Also, the 1st chapter says that man was created after all the animals, but the 2nd chapter implies that it was the other way around. It seems strange that such discrepancies would exist only a chapter apart, but there are a number of textual clues that suggest the first 5 books of the Bible were assembled over a long period of time from various writings written by a number of different people. Many scholars believe that Genesis 1 and 2 represent two separate versions of the creation story that were both included because the compilers didn’t know which was more accurate. Whatever the reason, there’s no question that the differences exist and are hard to explain.
10 Plagues
During the 10 plagues, God afflicts all of Egypt’s livestock with a disease (Ex 9:1-7), and it specifies that it would affect the “horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks.” We’re told that all of Egypt’s livestock died. But the later plague of boils was said to affect both man and beast (verse 10 of chapter 9). Maybe it meant non-livestock animals. But Ex 11:5 says that the death of the firstborn would also affect Egypt’s cattle, and in Exodus 14, Pharaoh pursues the Israelites with horses.
Hares Chew the Cud
Leviticus 11:6 tells us that hares chew the cud. They do not. Animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. When they eat plant matter, it goes to their first stomach to soften, and then it’s regurgitated to their mouth. They spend time re-chewing it, and then it is swallowed and fully digested. Ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, etc.) are recognizable because their chewing of the cud is very obvious. Hares (rabbits) don’t chew the cud; however, their mouths do move frequently, so it’s possible to see why some people may have assumed that they do chew the cud. Of course, God would know they didn’t, and this is why the passage is problematic. You can read more about this here.
Arphaxad
In the genealogy given in Genesis 11:10-12, we see that Noah fathered Shem and Shem fathered Arphaxad. At the age of 35, Arphaxad fathered Shelah. This information is confirmed in 1 Chron 1:18. But Luke 3:35-36 tells us that Arphaxad’s son was Cainan, and he was the father of Shelah.
Where does Luke get this information? It disagrees with the Old Testament, so who should we believe? Some have suggested that Genesis and 1 Chronicles simply left out Cainan for some reason. But why would they do that? To further complicate it, how could Cainan have fit in there? Genesis tells us that Arphaxad was 35 when he fathered Shelah. Does it really seem likely that Arphaxad became a grandfather by 35, especially when you consider the extreme old ages that people lived to at that time?
Another explanation is that some copyist messed up when copying Luke and Cainan is just a mistake. But this is not much better. First of all, the error would have needed to occur early for it to be in all our copies of Luke. Secondly, are we really comfortable saying that we have the inspired word of our creator, but it got messed up by some guy who wasn’t paying close attention? To me, that doesn’t lend a lot of credence to the idea of inspiration or inerrancy.
Instead, the most likely explanation is that Luke made a mistake. This, of course, would indicate that he was not inspired.
Problems in the Book of Daniel
In Daniel 5, the writer refers to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar 7 different times. Yet we know from multiple contemporary sources that Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus, who was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. The same chapter says that Darius the Mede took over Babylon, but this person does not seem to have ever existed. Daniel says that he was the son of Ahaseurus, and in mentioning this, the author of Daniel indicates that he was thinking of a later ruler — the persian emperor Darius the Great, whose son was Ahaseurus. This post in particular goes into the problems surrounding the 5th chapter, but if you’d like to learn about the problems in the rest of the book, you can access each article in the series here.
Jairus’s Daughter
In Mark 5:23, Jairus finds Jesus and says that his daughter is at the point of death. While they’re on their way to the house, some of his servants find them on the way and say that she has died and there’s no point in troubling Jesus further.
However, in Matthew 9:18, Jairus already knows that his daughter has died, but tells Jesus that if he’ll lay his hands on her, she’ll live. This may seem like a minor difference, but honestly, there’s only one scenario that could be true. Either the girl was already dead, or she wasn’t. And if Jairus already knew she was dead, then there was no point in his servants coming to tell him that (so of course, they don’t appear in Matthew’s account).
The Centurion
This is similar to the previous issue. Matthew and Luke both record a centurion who asks Jesus to heal his sick servant. Matthew 8:5-13 says that the centurion himself comes before Jesus to ask for help. Luke 7:1-10 says that the Jewish elders went on his behalf, and then he sent servants to follow up. In Luke, Jesus never speaks to, or even sees, the centurion at all.
Hight Priest
In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus talks about the occasion from the Old Testament when David ate the showbread, which Jesus said was in the days of Abiathar the high priest. However, in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, it appears that Ahimelech was the high priest. Some have tried to answer this problem by saying that Abiathar was alive during that particular episode, so Jesus’ statement is still true. But that’s obviously not the intent of the passage. After all, we would correct anyone who said that the tragedy of 9/11 occurred during the days of President Barack Obama. He may have been alive at the time, but that event did not happen while he was President.
430 Years
Galatians 3:16-17 says this:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
Here, Paul says that the law came 430 years after the promises were made to Abraham. But in Exodus 12:40-41, we see:
Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt.
If the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, then there could not have been 430 years between Abraham’s promises and the law. God made the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, and as we read on through Genesis, we see that Abraham had no children at this time. Later, he had a son named Isaac. When Isaac was 60 years old, he had Jacob (Gen 25:24-26), and Jacob had 12 sons that produced the 12 tribes of Israel. Already, we can see that some time has passed since Abraham received the promise. Once Jacob’s sons were all grown with families of their own, they finally settled in Egypt. Jacob was 130 years old at this time (Gen 47:9), and this marks the beginning of that 430 year period that the Israelites spent in Egypt.
That means that the time between the promise to Abraham and the giving of the law was actually over 600 years. So why did Paul say 430 years? I think it’s obvious that this was a simple mistake. He remembered the 430 year figure because that’s how much time the Israelites spent in Egypt, and so he simply misspoke. It’s not a big deal… except that he’s supposed to be inspired by God.
Jesus’ Birth
There are a number of issues surrounding Jesus’ birth. First, Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts contradict one another on virtually all the details, which you can read about here. Secondly, Matthew seems to invent an episode where Herod kills all the children in Bethlehem who are 2 and under, causing Mary, Joseph, and Jesus to flee to Egypt (instead of just returning home to Nazareth, because only Luke says that they started in Nazareth). Matthew does this in order to “fulfill” some Old Testament passages that actually have nothing to do with Jesus or killing babies. You can read about Matthew’s misuse of the Old Testament here — it’s quite blatant.
The Virgin Birth is one of the most famous aspects of Jesus’ story, and it was supposedly done in fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah. But it turns out that Isaiah was prophesying no such thing — he was talking about an event that was happening in his own time, and Matthew (once again) just appropriated the “prophecy” for his own devices. You can read all the details here.
Another problem concerning Jesus’ birth narratives is that Matthew and Luke both offer genealogies for Jesus, but they are completely different from one another. Worse, they don’t match the genealogies listed in the Old Testament, either. And Matthew claims that there was a pattern in the number of generations between Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian captivity, and between the Babylonian captivity and Christ. But to get this neat division, he is forced to leave out some names. In other words, that pattern didn’t happen. You can read more about that here.
The Triumphal Entry
While not as blatant as most of these other issues, when Matthew recounts Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he once again borrows from the Old Testament, but seems to make a mistake in his implementation. See here for more info.
Judas’ Death
Judas is well known for being the disciple that betrayed Jesus, but what’s not as well known is there are two different accounts of his death, and it’s very hard to reconcile them. According to Matthew, Judas threw his money down at the chief priests’ feet and went out and hanged himself. We’re not told where he did this. The priests then take the money, and instead of putting it back in the treasury (since it’s blood money), they buy a field to use for burying strangers. Because they bought the field with this money, it’s called the “Field of Blood.”
According to Acts, Judas bought a field with his money (we’re not told that he was remorseful), and he somehow fell down, bursting open in the middle and bleeding to death. The field was called “Field of Blood” after that because of the manner in which Judas died.
To make things more complicated, Matthew (of course) says that this happened in accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecy, but there’s nothing in Jeremiah that matches up. The closest reference comes from Zechariah, not Jeremiah.
These issues really complicate the notion of divine inspiration, and you can read more about them here.
The Crucifixion
There are several big problems with the way the gospels record the events of Jesus’ death, including the fact that different times of day are given for it, and even different days altogether. You can read more about this here.
The Resurrection
There are also a number of problems concerning the resurrection, some minor, some major. They’re too involved to get into here, but you can read all about them here and here.
The Problem of Hell
The notion of Hell is fraught with problems. It might even surprise you to learn that the Bible’s teachings on the afterlife change dramatically between the Old and New Testaments. I go into detail about Hell’s problems here, here, and here.
The Problem of Evil
Another huge problem for Christianity is the problem of evil, which I talk about here. This post also addresses the “problem of Heaven.”
The Bible’s Morality
While a number of people believe that the Christian god is the source of all morality, the Bible is actually filled with some monstrous acts that are either commanded by God, done with his consent, or carried out by him directly. I talk about some specific examples here, and I address some of the common responses to them here.
Conclusion
Kathy, there are a number of other examples that could be given, including the prophecy of Tyre that we’ve been discussing. But to me, these are some of the most significant and clear-cut problems. We could try to manufacture explanations for every one of these — some might be more believable than others. But why should we have to? If a perfect God inspired this book, why should it contain so many discrepancies? And honestly, some of these issues can’t be explained. They’re just wrong. The problems go well beyond internal contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. There are problems of authorship, problems with the doctrines, and problems with the way the texts were written, transcribed, and compiled.
I’m sure you’ve spent your time as a Christian trying to reach those who are lost. You’ve always believed that Christianity is truth, and it’s the one thing that everyone needs. But could it be that Christianity is just as false as every other religion in the world? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t you want to leave it behind? When one is dedicated to finding truth, they have to be prepared to follow it wherever it leads. It’s not always easy or popular. It’s not even a guarantee that you’re right. All it means is that you follow the evidence where it leads to the best of your ability. If you find out that you’re wrong about something, you adjust course when the evidence dictates. If God exists, and if he’s righteous, what more could he ask for than that? I’ll close with my favorite quote:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
— Marcus Aurelius
Finding Truth 
“The ammonites were suppose to be a mystical creation of the bIble but then ooops evidence was found.
the kingdom of David was supposed to be mythical but oops then they found evidence for that
Belshazzar that Nate mentions (and claims to know for fact was not related to Nebuchadnezzar) was for claimed for MANY years according to Skeptics a completely made up character but then ooops they found evidence of that and then
He was never a ruler of Babyon but oops that held up too”
Who made these claims Mike ? Please name names and their credentials as you always ask us to do.
BTW they have found 1 piece of evidence with “A” David’s name on it. Here is what the Jewish Virtual Library has to say about that 1 piece of evidence.
“Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David (“House” or “Dynasty” of David”). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.”
If WE were using just 1 piece of evidence to support any of our claims YOU would laugh it off instantly !
LikeLike
“Mike, I never set out to “prove” any of these contradictions. They simply are what they are. ”
Kinda like your I am opened minded I will just never change my mind bit. eh? Heres my evidence and it shows what things really are but I am not saying its proving anything. Sheesh I am the acrobat? that was quite a spinning dismount.
Well great then Nate now we know all these times you are just opining your feelings not proving anything. good stuff.
“because I can’t imagine a God who would purposefully create all these issues or one who would need apologists to help him make his case and fix his shortcomings”
Sigh… the ever present fall back. I confused myself by not doing thorough research so its God’s fault I didn’t do good enough research because God should always accomodate laziness and lack of study of those who question his existence. Yes Nate I know I’ve read you fall back to that often.
“You know what else is funny? That until that discovery, Christians thought that he was Nebuchadnezzar’s son.”
They still do Nate. Grand SON. and you know whats the funniest? the word still is used that way in the bible and has always had that possible meaning with not a thing you can do about it. Case closed.
LikeLike
Sometimes I wish I had your patience, Nate, but most times, I’m glad I don’t.
LikeLike
As much as I love a good, rollicking to and fro with any number of apparently intellectually retarded apologists, a character such as Mike has decorated this post with so much banality that one finds oneself becoming what one despises after innumerable responses.
Truly, is there really any need to have to justify one’s POV to a person that considers the narrative construct, Jesus of Nazareth the be all and end all of his world?
I think I’ll leave Mike for those with more patience and wait until Nate posts again, hopefully, ,sans the little tit, Anthony.
LikeLike
“They still do Nate. Grand SON. and you know whats the funniest? the word still is used that way in the bible and has always had that possible meaning with not a thing you can do about it. Case closed.”
any you know very well that until it was discovered christians didn’t argue “grandson” but “son.” and the “grandson” part, that you’re claiming now, has no evidence. zero. It’s a supposition based upon the bible and what people used to think based off it only. It’s an attempt to reconcile the bible’s use of “son” when they now know, without a doubt, that belshazzer wasnt Neb’s son – so they guess (and that’s all it is) that his mother could have been the daughter or granddaughter of Neb.
Look it it.
But even so, I cant prove his mother wasnt related to Neb, and there are many other issues with Daniel. But it is true, and indisputable, that this issue could have easily been avoided had it been written more clearly. God didnt do that, i guess because, like you pointed out, god wants people to read his bible, and make the efforts to read everything else, wading through the evidence fro and against, and then just decide the the bible is right and take it on what is ultimately blind faith.
the same that is required to swallow the koran or any other holy book.
yeah, the case is closed.
LikeLike
RE: “…if something doesn’t agree with the bible, then it is wrong, because the bible is always right.”
That reminds me, William, of the note from Hank —
LikeLike
Arch, exactly right
LikeLike
“I think it’s funny how mike routinely cites wikipedia, but then will criticize nate for doing so…”
I think it funny that you don’t realize I started using it because it seems to be mostly what you guys use.
LikeLike
“any you know very well that until it was discovered christians didn’t argue “grandson” but “son.” and the “grandson” part, that you’re claiming now, has no evidence. zero”
Will I suggest you to a school’s drama department. You do a mean impression of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. I have all the evidence I need. Countless passages in the OT where the word is used for grandson and great grandson and you have nothing but a beg from Nate that they all don’t count. Its YOU with the ZERO evidence and its amusing to see you try and spin it the other way when you can’t
LikeLike
“I think it funny that you don’t realize I started using it because it seems to be mostly what you guys use.”
makes sense… I guess… It does look like the pot calling the kettle black though… by the way, have read Matthew 7:5? it’s a fascinating passage. It’s also kind of like making fun of a guy for drowning while you’re sinking underwater… I just thought that maybe you werent aware that youre that guy – but it looks like youre cool with it.
do unto others what they do unto you?
If i didnt find a source trustworthy, I wouldnt use it. I dont use wikipedia to cite anything, but that’s only because of its reputation and to avoid this very thing. It’s better now, wikipedia, than it was when it first appeared.
LikeLike
“But it is true, and indisputable, that this issue could have easily been avoided had it been written more clearly. God didnt do that,”
Nate has trained you well young Will – when your point cannot stand by the evidence go to the all purpose we thought it was confusing so our no evidence point still stands. Take the goalpost and run with it as fast as you can. Meanwhile in truth who was Bel’s father changes nothing doctrinally to matter. The only people who it makes any difference to that Bel was NEb’ son or Nab’s are skeptics whose ONLY interest in the relationship is to show an error.
They being thwarted by GOD’s use of a word that means grandson as well – who really cares?
Only the whining skeptics because they no longer can prove the error their bias swore was there and because yet another contradiction has bit the dust.
LikeLike
Wikipedia is a starting point, not a destination. The articles there contain links to the sources cited.
LikeLike
“Will I suggest you to a school’s drama department. You do a mean impression of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. I have all the evidence I need. Countless passages in the OT where the word is used for grandson and great grandson and you have nothing but a beg from Nate that they all don’t count. Its YOU with the ZERO evidence and its amusing to see you try and spin it the other way when you can’t” – Mike
what are we talking about?
You’re mentioning evidence and it’s confusing me… no evidence of what?
But, yes, often son and grandson and so on were summed up with son. many times son also meant son, and didnt mean grandson. This is the clear point being made. Once upon time, because of the daniel is written, christains believed “son” as in “son” and now, because of the evidence will say “grandson.” and that could be, but again there’s no evidence of this – it’s merely a guess and it’s only guessed because the bible says he was neb’s son, when we know he was not, so what could mean? it must mean “son.”
I feel silly having to go into this much detail explaining this.
and again, had Daniel mentioned Nabonidus or his “mother’s father, neb…” we would not be having a discussion on this issue now. It could have been written in such away to prevent any conflict (apparent or literal) and it would have been very easy to do so – yet it wasnt. I assume it’s either a mistake in the text or god just likes mixing things up.
if this were the only issue in the bible, I’d probably still believe it. But since it’s just one of many…
LikeLike
“Maybe he thinks the word ‘fallacious’ has something to do with oral sex?”
It doesn’t?
LikeLike
“if this were the only issue in the bible, I’d probably still believe it. But since it’s just one of many…”
Yes I know…”the put up a load of garbage that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and then claim some of them must be right because of the volume put up” gambit.
What else is new?
LikeLike
Ark – Cliff Klaven here – it’s a little known fact that Backpfeifengesicht is German for “a face that makes you want to hit it”. You might want to save that tidbit, you might find a use for it someday – soon.
LikeLike
William, I say this with the greatest respect – do you see how frustrated you are allowing him to make you?
LikeLike
(Should have added this:) I KNOW you wouldn’t allow any OTHER flyspec to frustrate you so much!
LikeLike
It seems that both groups are saying the same thing:
Group 1: “Your running away from the Truth!”
Group 2: “No, your running away from the Truth!”
And around and around it goes…
It’s actually pretty tiresome to read.
LikeLike
Regarding the discipleship…
It seems that either John the Baptist (JTB), or the author(s) of Matthew had a severe case of amnesia. In Matthew 3:11-16 we read that John recognizes Jesus as the Messiah:
Yet eight chapters later (Mt 11:1-3), we read that JTB commissions his disciples to go investigate whether or not Jesus is the Messiah they’ve been expecting:
Hard to believe that someone who felt himself unworthy to baptize Jesus, and then witnessed the heavens open and the Spirit of God descending like a dove upon Jesus after the baptism would need to make further inquiries about whether or not Jesus was the real deal.
LikeLike
And Lately these threads remind me of name calling in a schoolyard.
it’s sad to see it’s started up again here.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Excellent point, Ron!
LikeLike
Arch: “William, I say this with the greatest respect – do you see how frustrated you are allowing him to make you?”
I feel it too – gone on, i deserve it. tell me you told me so.
But I’m always frustrated, and now I think he is too. His rambling doesn’t really bother me. the more he goes on and on, is the more he wraps his rope around his own neck.
LikeLike
“…so our no evidence point still stands” – mike
No evidence of nothing? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
You have a book, that you claim god himself told people to write for him, because those people claim god told them to write it. You then declare that belshazzer’s mother was related to Nebuchadnezzar because evidence has shown that belshazzer wasnt neb’s son, as Daniel states seven times that he was, and because evidence has shown the Bel’s real father, the kind, had no relation to neb, so without evidence of anything, you HOPE that his mother was related in some way to neb and then go on to declare, “case closed,” the bible’s right. there is zero evidence for the supposition that belshazzer’s mother was related to neb in anyway. The only “evidence” you have for such is the bible.
My whole point is, “where is your evidence?” You’re essentially saying that your evidence for the bible is the bible. I wouldn’t have thought to do that, but that’s probably because I’m not an idiot.
the more I talk with you, the more certain I become. If you’d like to pretend any of these issues are cut and dry and obviously not problematic, then you are free to do so. i, on the other hand, have serious doubts with the bible’s authenticity based upon them.
and the fact this didnt have to be an issue at all, could have been clarified so easily as not to leave any question of accuracy, but then still wasnt avoided, makes perfect sense to me. I get it that you dont understand that.. if you’re having trouble understanding the implications of this simple concept, then i cannot help you, i’m afraid.
and saying that it shouldn’t be a problem, doesn’t resolve the problem. I’m not the only one troubled this; and having Mike (the self labeld christian who doesnt cat lie a christian) say, “it’s so easily explained away” just doesnt seem like enough to convince me.
I guess we’ll have to agree that we dont agree.
LikeLike