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
“Sources please..”
There available on the Internet. Seek and ye shall find. 🙂
LikeLike
oops… They’re, not there.
LikeLike
Oh and the conclusion he derives that the antibiotic that saved his child’s life was a result of the theory of evolution as if the resistance to bacteria is something we would never have without common ancestry claims is close to assinine so why would God say a word knowing what was going to be his final position
LikeLike
Kathy you will find that Ron is just about the silliest poster on here and likes to quote mine passages endlessly. as you can see he doesn’t even get that one cannot ask in faith as a test…lol…. neither can true believers have faith for other people No t even Jesus claimed that
Matthew 13:58 (HCSB)
58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.
He never improves
LikeLike
Poor Mike. Always having to make excuses for why his god fails to show up in real life. 🙂
LikeLike
“Poor Mike. Always having to make excuses for why his god fails to show up in real life.”
Poor Ron. Always shown up for his lack of knowledge of what is in the Bible beyond his quote mines. Jesus being unable to do miracles because of the unbelief of a society many centuries before Darwin destroys his weak point.
LikeLike
Imagine that! Omnipotent god is unable to keep his promises to believers because it’s power is thwarted by unbelievers.
Here’s another instance where God failed to “get it up” for his peeps:
“And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron” ~Judges 1:19
Maybe it should be called “omni-impotent” GOD. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, that’s my claim.. and I’ve stated why.. and no one has given any arguments to
counter my claim. What else am I suppose to think?? I’m supposed to agree with you all just
because?
No, Kathy. When did anybody say that. What has been said here is that people take issue with certain things in the Bible. You’ve found a way to reconcile them to your satisfaction. You still haven’t convinced people here that you’re right. Yours is just one interpretation among many and you are convinced you have the right one.
You have said over and over again how objective you are, but the truth seems to that while “you’ve heard it all before” you’ve never listened. You haven’t done much here but attack liberals/atheists. All your “proof” has been “proof text” from the Bible. When asked what other sources you haven’t given anything other than “outside sources”. You haven’t named any of them that I saw. You don’t let atheists off the hook that easy. And you look up. You see the world around you. Because we don’t interpret the “world around us” the same way you do you feel free to go on the attack.
Your 50/50 claim? What evidence do you have of that claim? It’s only 50/50? That means you have a 50% chance of being wrong. That doesn’t seem like a slam dunk to me. And while you claim you have this 50% chance of being right you haven’t proven why the one God you believe in is the best one. You’ve only stated that he is because you find it compelling. First of all I’d have to be convinced that there is a God. What I mean by that is: perhaps there is a supernatural event that started the big bang. What evidence do you have that it is intelligent? What evidence have you given of this? What evidence do you have that there’s only one of these things? What evidence do you have that it is concerned with our morality or our mortality? Other than scripture, itself, I haven’t seen much in the way of evidence from you.
You see, all these are questions that are far to much for the comment section in one blog post. So the fact that people wanted to limit it means censorship to you. No, it has nothing to do with censorship. It’s not because we don’t like your “facts”. It’s because this blog post has already generated 617 comments and more than half of them are not even about it’s original content.
Constraints are put on live debate all the time and nobody complains about that or cries censorship. The fact that Nate, who is this blog’s host and owner, has allowed it to go on this long is testament to the fact that no one is censoring anything. The fact that he’s allowed it to go so far off-topic is testament to that.
LikeLike
@Kathy,
But, instead of giving me arguments to my claim, you accuse me of being closed minded.. of believing “too much” in my views (unlike you all who don’t believe “too much” in your views I guess), so therefore you don’t have to give opposing arguments. It’s utter silliness.
I’m not offering any arguments because you already have your mind made up and it’s not my goal or purpose to change your mind. Regardless of what you think I’m not trying to get you to reject God.
You’ve stated over and over again you’ve heard all the arguments and have rejected them. No one could convince you because you’re already convinced. Why would I try to argue with you when you’re clearly not hearing the arguments to gain any kind of understanding but only for the purpose of picking them apart and making them fit your interpretation of what you already believe?
LikeLike
You love that name and you know it. 🙂
LikeLike
I don’t think she’s interested in coffee.
LikeLike
My last two comments were @arch. I forgot about the stacking.
LikeLike
“You make a good point.. UNTIL you look for the actual evidence for Zeus or any other god.. ooops.. no Bible, no Gospels, no witness, martyrs, fulfilled prophecies.. nothing COMPARIBLE.. that helps tremendously in answering which God.”
ooops and NO Emperor’s mother (Helena) who brought lots of $$$$ to the Holy Land to find alleged holy sites and to build churches. And NO Emperor Constantine or Emperor Theodosius I to officially make Nicene Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. A marriage made in Heaven. Control & Greed
Where would Christianity be today without the help of the Roman Empire ?
LikeLike
“Omnipotent god is unable to keep his promises to believers because it’s power is thwarted by unbelievers. ”
Thwart nope. Power has always been conditional on faith. Thats an as old as time condition and thats the way he wants it. For things that are not conditional you have laws – what you call laws of nature although you have no natural explanation for their origins
“Here’s another instance where God failed to “get it up” for his peeps:”
Nope his peeps had begun to be unfriendly to his commands so were beginning to lose assistance but hey how would you as a quote miner know whats in the next chapter
Judges 2:1-2 (HCSB)
1 The Angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim and said, “I brought you out of Egypt and led you into the land I had promised to your fathers. I also said: I will never break My covenant with you.
2 You are not to make a covenant with the people who are living in this land, and you are to tear down their altars. But you have not obeyed Me. What is this you have done?”
Kid I could debunk you all day and night. You never have the goods but I have more to do with my weekend
LikeLike
“Where would Christianity be today without the help of the Roman Empire ?”
everywhere it spread outside the roman empire and spreading within the roman empire as it did for all the years Rome tried to stamp it .
Your track record for failed points is impressive
LikeLike
Mike’s eisegesis is second to none. But the fact remains: the text explicitly states that God could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.
LikeLike
Ruth
@ June 28, 2014 at 4:28 am
“[ . . . ]
You see, all these are questions that are far to much for the comment section in one blog post. So the fact that people wanted to limit it means censorship to you. No, it has nothing to do with censorship. It’s not because we don’t like your “facts”. It’s because this blog post has already generated 617 comments and more than half of them are not even about it’s original content.
Constraints are put on live debate all the time and nobody complains about that or cries censorship. The fact that Nate, who is this blog’s host and owner, has allowed it to go on this long is testament to the fact that no one is censoring anything. The fact that he’s allowed it to go so far off-topic is testament to that.”
Zoe shares: I agree and certainly my idea (if some thought so) was not intended to suggest censorship. I saw Nate’s original request. It was an idea. Another idea was that the post and commenting could have been kept between Nate and Kathy in this situation. I’ve seen that done before as well. Usually no one changes their opinion either way but at least the discussion is easier to follow and maintains a respectful tone.
It’s Nate’s blog and I respect his decision either way.
LikeLike
“You love that name and you know it. 🙂”
@#&$%#!
LikeLike
Surely this just has to be a piss-take? ”Thwarting such an evil intent”. Honestly, is this bloke serious?
Truly, the funniest comment on the entire thread. In fact one of the more hilarious xian utterings I’ve heard in ages.
The story so far, Dear Reader….
Poor, unfortunate Christian, Kathy ‘Nonconvertible’ is tied to the railway tracks by Nate ”Dr. Evil” Owens. In the distance, the Atheist Train of Truth bears down inexorably upon our hapless Sinner.
But lo. Fear not , Dear Kathy, for like the avenging god Yarwee, who slaughtered untold g’zillions, Everyone’s favorite Hero and Sunbeam for Geezus, Mike Anthony, is come to the rescue. And forsooth, with a ”Kaboom” and a ”Baam” and a ”Smack”, a flurry of speaking in tongues and watching amputees’ limbs grow back, mean and nasty Nate ‘Dr. Evil’ Owens is banished to the pit and sweet and innocent Kathy Nonconvertible is welcomed home to the bosom of the Lawd.
Halleloo yar.
LikeLike
“You love that name and you know it. :)”
@#&$%#!
Terms of endearment?
LikeLike
@Ron – so iron is his kryptonite?
LikeLike
Bazzfazz!
LikeLike
Bazzfazz!
I don’t even know what this means. Should I?
LikeLike
@arch
The Promised Land: I Give You This Land, All You Have To Do Is Steal It. 🙂
LikeLike
“Mike’s eisegesis is second to none. But the fact remains: the text explicitly states that God could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.”
LOL Your ignorance on theology is funny. Thanks for the link to the meaning of eisegesis but um I didn’t use it. I know the meaning of the word and you obviously don’t. Its directly in the text that after the generation of Joshua they sinned and were beginning to lose the connection the y had when Joshualed them and no it is not directly stated in the text that God could not drive them out. get a clue and read more than your preferred versions
http://biblehub.com/judges/1-19.htm
See any differences in pronouns in those translations? Try again
LikeLike