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 
“I feel it too – gone on, i deserve it. tell me you told me so.”
I don’t do that, but I HAVE noticed that you highly prize your self-esteem, and I just didn’t want to watch you lose that – purely selfish on my part —
LikeLike
“It seems that either John the Baptist (JTB), or the author(s) of Matthew had a severe case of amnesia”
Yawn….. You guys do give true meaning to the phrase
“If at first you do not succeed. try try again”
I am not entirely sure anyone understood all the things that were required or conditioned on the messiah at the time but lets say he did and thought before Jesus was the messiah (though Matthew 3 doesn’t use the word). people ask questions to confirm what they already believe all the time. Furthermore doubts crop up in the human mind even under the best circumstances much less in Jail about to die. So the idea that someone asked to confirm what they already knew before but might have had doubts of proves nothing
except that
As usual you have no good point. its all just begging not proving a contradiction.
LikeLike
But William … Mike will never “agree” with anything that a “skeptic” would say so it’s hopeless he’ll ever agree with your last statement.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what a contradiction is according to mike.
again, I haven’t seen a contradiction that couldn’t be explained away with conjecture and supernatural patchwork. And then say that if you cant disprove my made up gap-filling-stories, then they’re valid…
it’s like trying to disprove bigfoot by demanding his body be presented.
I can argue that both Islam and Christianity are the true religion at the same time – and some people do.
Doesn’t make it a credible argument.
LikeLike
William listen to Ark and arch and ignore me because your silly response now is to claim that I must disprove your assertion of a contradiction instead of you proving that one must exist which is just utter empty nonsense.
the word can mean son, grandson or great grandson. Get over it. its used that way SEVERAL TIMES in the Bible. You are not going to change that fact. So do you know if Daniel is right and Bel is the grand son of NEb? No you don’t, no one has third party evidence and so your clam that Daniel is wrong is not something you can prove. .I can’t show third party evidence either but then I am not claiming to but what frustrates you is the FACT that arises out of that and that is – you have another contradiction you claim that you cannot prove
the end . case closed. those are the facts we have
LikeLike
“William listen to Ark and arch and ignore me because your silly response now is to claim that I must disprove your assertion of a contradiction instead of you proving that one must exist which is just utter empty nonsense.”
Oh, well listen, I wasnt saying it was a contradiction, but an error. Sure, you’ll go on to say that was his grandson. that’s cool, and may even be true, there’s just no evidence for that. I havent even disputed that son had to mean son all the I acknowledged the son, grandson and so on, thing you’re referring to again.
What I’m saying, and youre doing your best to try and not understand, is that christians once interpreted “son” in this regard as “son” and not “grandson.” I mention thsi littl;e fact only because you say the skeptics had to back peddle once secular history verified belshazzer’s existence = except that existence was different than what christians had imagined.
it’s only after the discovery of the evidence of belshazzer and and his real father, that the christians now have to say “grandson.” Which is fine. You certainly cant say he’s the son, so maybe it is grandson.
the point is, is that there’s nothing confirming this. So in this regard, you’re using the bible to validate itself. The bible says son, but we know that’s not right, so Bel’s mother must have been Neb’s daughter, because the bible says “son” seven times, it must mean “grandson.” It’s circular and it’s the bible confirming the bible.
that’s my point. Not that it’s a contradiction. No, I think it’s an error, but that’s not even my point. My point is and has been, regarding this, your position on Belshazzar is wishful thinking, yet you use it as a victory song.
I really dont know how much more simply i can state it for you. does this help?
LikeLike
Regarding the discipleship chronology:
Mark 1:16-19 says:
Those are all exactly identical. No one should ever think otherwise. only the unlearned in ancient greek would make such a mistake as to think these identical texts are contradictory. Why, in my opinion, they’re far too similar.
Praise alah and the man jesus. amen.
LikeLike
“Oh, well listen, I wasnt saying it was a contradiction, but an error. Sure, you’ll go on to say that was his grandson. that’s cool, and may even be true, there’s just no evidence for that.”
William sorry mi lad but you just don’t get basic common sense. Sure if you wish you can SAY there was an error but you don’t have the evidence to say so. The evidence that you wish to run away from is that the word can and IS used in the Bible over and over again as son , or grandson or even great grandson. YOU are still trying to pretend that isn’t the case but its a fact so lets see if we can break it down for you
Can you or nate show in Daniel that the word does not mean grandson even though in countless other passages the Hebrew says it can and does?
No you can’t
Can you say who Bel’s mother was? No you cannot
So whats the logical play here? simple. We don’t know that Daniel is wrong or right. I am not claiming to be proving it by referring to the Bible as you lie .I am saying there is no third party data to say either way.
Further even if every christian in the world reading the word in english thought son was the reading what you seem to be too obstinate to admit is that that IS allowed for and used in the Hebrew. Readers hundreds of years after work is written have nothing zip to do with what a passage means. Thats just VAST silly nonsense so your and nate’s claim that well Christians only came up with that after the fact is dismissed by the fact that the HEBREW WAS USED that way THOUSANDS Of years ago
So last time and you can babble on all you wish. I am not claiming that ANY position is proven because the Bible says so. I am saying there is no third party evidence to prove an error was made or a proper statement was made
That common sense position based o n the facts bothers you because either way it your positive claim for an error doesn’t wash based on available evidence. Move on to something else because the claim has been defeated for lack of evidence.
THE END.
LikeLike
“William sorry mi lad but you just don’t get basic common sense. Sure if you wish you can SAY there was an error but you don’t have the evidence to say so. The evidence that you wish to run away from is that the word can and IS used in the Bible over and over again as son , or grandson or even great grandson. YOU are still trying to pretend that isn’t the case but its a fact so lets see if we can break it down for you” – mike
yep, not what was said. I suggest reading the comment youre responding to.
LikeLike
“So whats the logical play here? simple. We don’t know that Daniel is wrong or right. I am not claiming to be proving it by referring to the Bible as you lie .I am saying there is no third party data to say either way.”
thta’s the point i’ve been making. but then why are you so sure it’s his grandson?
I dont doubt the possibility. I have already agreed, several times, that son can commonly be used for grandson as well.
I merely said what christians used to think son meant for belshazzer prior to the discovery of the nabonidus chronicle.
why are you so intent on arguing if we agree?
LikeLike
“Note that in Mathew and Mark’s versions:
– Peter and Andrew are casting nets
– they leave everything immediately after Jesus calls them
– James and John (who are preparing their nets in a boat further down the lake) do likewise after Jesus calls out to them from the shore.
But in Luke’s version:
– Jesus first boards a boat and tells Peter (no mention of Andrew) to go fishing
– Peter agrees to honor Jesus’ request after complaining he worked hard all night without catching anything (which implies they were already done fishing)
– James and John (their fishing partners) are signaled to come and help reel in the catch
– Peter is reluctant to follow Jesus and needs to be persuaded
– they all pull their boats ashore and leave everything behind to follow Jesus”
ROFL oh wow.. Luke adds some extra details that Matthew doesn’t so umm that s a contradiction. l loved this fudge especially
” Peter is reluctant to follow Jesus and needs to be persuaded 🙂 🙂
and yet both LUke and Matthew agree that as soon as Jesus tells them they will be fishers of men they do so straight away IN RON’S OWN QUOTE …..LOL
Luke
Then Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid; from now on you will fish for people.” So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him.
matthew
Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” At once they left their nets and followed him.
You guys are soooo hilarious!! lol
“Now compare this with John’s version (John 1:35-50)”
Nah thats been debunked….not the same time sorry
“Which means that JTB couldn’t have been in jail yet”
NO in John 1 he wasn’t. again its just not the same account. Sorry.
Sheesh I must excuse myself from this silliness. too much for one day.
LikeLike
@Arch,
I said: “No one died to testify to the truth of Star Trek.”
You: “19 men died flying airplanes into select targets for the glory of Islam – does that make you a Muslim?”
That comparison makes no sense. You don’t seem to understand the fundamental differences.. Those men killed themselves and as many innocent people as possible.. for the “glory” of “allah”… that is VASTLY different from Christian martyrs spreading the Truth of the Gospel WHILE their lives are being threatened for doing so. They harmed NO ONE.. THEY were harmed & killed merely for speaking their beliefs.
“I told you what a busy day I was having, and that I would get back with you when it was over, with additional information, but some of the things you’ve been saying in your comments – “it’s always amusing to hear what atheists manage to come up with to try and explain away the Bible” – and – “There is NO OTHER rational explanation!” – lead me to believe you aren’t sufficiently open-minded enough to benefit from any effort I might make, and you’ve shown me no reason to do so. Good luck.”
The only issue I had with your comment was that you were making “factual” claims without any references.. as if readers/ me are supposed to take your word for it. You gave no indication that you were going to give the references later.. the things being claimed were absurd.. so, all that put together was offensive to anyone reading who is seeking truth.. NOT what liberals/ atheists deem to be the truth… sorry, I should have handled it better.
And my statement that there is no other rational explanation, in a DEBATE forum.. is a challenge.. to ANYONE who disagrees. I find it very revealing that no one took up that challenge this time or ANY other time I’ve made it.
LikeLike
Yeah the desperation is setting in. WIll is now claiming he was in agreement though stating this
“Oh, well listen, I wasnt saying it was a contradiction, but an error.”
Sigh…catch you guys later or not.
LikeLike
William said:
“Then, Kathy, I think nate was saying it doesnt serve as evidence, much less as proof.
it only serves as evidence for their firm belief in something. And nate was giving evidence of other people’s firm belief in something else.”
Yes, that is my claim.. it is evidence of their firm belief, which is evidence (however compelling) for the truth of the Bible. My claim is that it is VERY compelling evidence. The only way to make it not compelling would be to show that those people who were killed by others were not sane or rational.. and there is nothing in the Bible or outside of it to indicate this.
LikeLike
@Arch..
“RE: “Nate, I didn’t make the claim that the martyrs of Christianity prove it’s truth. Why did you make that assumption?”
You certainly implied it.
And THAT is a large part of the problem with atheists.. you make incorrect assumptions. Proof and evidence are not the same thing. Just like the false assumption that “Tyre” means all of Tyre in that portion of the prophecy.. it’s not a valid assumption.
LikeLike
““Oh, well listen, I wasnt saying it was a contradiction, but an error.”
Sigh…catch you guys later or not.” – mike
taken out of context, I may can see what you mean. But in the context of my comment, it’s clearly my opinion, with the caveat it’s not proven and wasnt my point anyway.
Please, read the entire comment and try not to quote mine. i know how you hate that, but i also know what a hypocrite you are, so it’s difficult.
LikeLike
Isn’t it marvelous that God gave us his word in a language where there’s no distinction between father, grandfather, and ancient ancestor — between mainland and field — between cud and anything else? Truly his ways are mysterious.
Praise alah and the man jesus
LikeLike
“Tyre” means all of Tyre in that portion of the prophecy.. it’s not a valid assumption.” – kathy
evidently. I guess we just have to wait until the events unfurl before we can truly know what was being foretold. takes a little away from the miraculous impact, but it is the best way to find out what happens.
LikeLike
Excellent catch! You do good work, Ron!
LikeLike
I was a Christian when i assumed the bible was from god. When I questioned that assumption and researched it, i quickly departed Christianity.
LikeLike
Arch said: “Exactly, William – if people are made to believe that they have a soul, that it lives forever, and that if they give their short, human lives in servicer to their god, they’ll be transported to a paradise where they’ll live happily for eternity as a reward for their devotion, they are quite likely to make that trade, but it only proves the extent of their indoctrination, and the degree of their gullibility,nothing more.”
So, what is your better explanation then? People who believe we have souls have realized that there is no better explanation.. we are created beings, with purpose.. not freak accidences.
It’s the MOST rational explanation.. I believe I’ve already made this claim/ challenge, I wonder if this one will get ignored also.
And those who are gullible believe & give their lives based on the word of a SINGLE person.. Muhammed.. a pedophile and a murderer. THAT’S gullible.
LikeLike
“I was a Christian when i assumed the bible was from god. When I questioned that assumption and researched it, i quickly departed Christianity.”
And I assert that you lack objectivity.. that is based on my “research” of liberals/ atheists and the knowledge I have of Christianity based on the Bible.
LikeLike
“It’s the MOST rational explanation.. I believe I’ve already made this claim/ challenge, I wonder if this one will get ignored also.” – kathy
didnt mean to ignore your claim. I claim the opposite. And hope doesnt equal reality, but you could be right, and so could I. Although, we could both be wrong too.
“And I assert that you lack objectivity.. that is based on my “research” of liberals/ atheists and the knowledge I have of Christianity based on the Bible.” – kathy
that’s fair, because i think you lack objectivity. and are you saying that your research is base don the bible or that your Christianity is? If you mean your research, then i hope you mean that you research the validity of the bible and not that you merely read the bible and that that serves as your research.
if you mean that your Christianity is based on the bible, them i’d say good.
Why are you saying I’m a liberal and in what way do you mean that term?
LikeLike
Still waiting on Mike to provide names and credentials from his claims.
“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