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 
Sabio & William,
Great comments from both of you. I was indoctrinated as a child in Pentecostalism. It was a sin for my brothers and I to own comic books. Our pastor for years said it was a sin to own a TV. Later he claims God revealed to him it was OK but must be limited. (this was after his kids kept hounding him for a TV). When we finally got one, all we could watch was the news and Gunsmoke.
My church experience was one big guilt trip from not studying my Sunday school lesson to missing church because I spent that Saturday night over at a friends house and went to church with him.
Like William & Nate, it was watching what was then called “History International” when they had series about the bible that caused me to start to question. From there reading books from Albert Schweitzer (The Quest for the Historical Jesus) and scholars like Geza Vermes and Bart Erhman . It all quickly fell apart from there.
I know what its like to defend my faith. It became harder and harder to do, the more I thought about it. I do have compassion for the believers who enter atheist blogs. I have little tolerance for those who instantly become arrogant and condescending however.
LikeLike
@ Sabio, William, and KC,
Sabio said:
” But though I had studied the Bible and Theology, problems-with-the-Bible was not my reason for leaving at all. My first foot out was due to seeing the foolishness behind placing soteriological value behind “believing”. I realized that we were all fools — I could not imagine a god that expected belief as a criteria.”
This was probably the major factor, looking back on it, in my own deconversion. Thinking about all the different religions, and the many who – along with Chrisitanity – put such an emphasis on right belief instead of what kind of person one is; mental ascent to some exact belief, which is supposed to transform one’s life but most often doesn’t. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. all indoctrinated in their own ways such that it makes it nearly impossible for them to believe anything else facing a fate of hell because of their geography?
It was only then that I began to see the problems with scripture. It’s not that I can’t still do the mental gymnastics it takes to make it all fit, it’s just that it doesn’t make any sense to have to do so. I can see how Christians arrive at their conclusions, I just don’t agree with them.
William said:
” I had not allowed myself to even consider the logical issues with it when i was younger for fear of seeming ungrateful to god, or fear of questioning god, or the fear of being wrong if imagined heaven to be better than what it was, etc, etc.”
I couldn’t even admit to myself I had any doubts for a long time. I couldn’t even entertain the doubts I had until I could give up my fear of disappointing God, and after I decided that God could handle any doubts I had, the fear of hell.
KC said:
“I do have compassion for the believers who enter atheist blogs. I have little tolerance for those who instantly become arrogant and condescending however.”
Me too. As I said before, I remember how all these “problems” were reconciled, and can still achieve some level of understanding of how they are – though I don’t agree with them. You have to go around your elbow to get to your thumb.
All the belittling and insults are just a bit much for me. I don’t think I’m smarter, or more enlightened, or more logical than anyone else. I just have different conclusions. I could be wrong. I’m just extremely skeptical of anyone who seems so certain of anything these days.
LikeLike
” I’m just extremely skeptical of anyone who seems so certain of anything these days.”
and yet Ruth I see a guy here who is VERY certain that he is seeing Christianity right even pretending against all logic known to man that he is open minded nevertheless
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/never-going-back/
“But now for the admission. Now for the part that I haven’t been able to say to my family yet: I don’t see any way that I’ll ever believe Christianity again. On the surface, that may seem like it runs counter toward my goal of being open-minded, but it really doesn’t. . The fact is, I’ve just seen too much. “I once was blind, but now I see.” The fact is, the Bible can’t fix its problems because it’s a closed document. ”
“Open minded nevertheless”? and he says I am the acrobat. So you should be skeptical of Nate then eh? Unless what you really mean is that you are extremely skeptical of anyone certain of what YOU don’t maintain.
as for being more logical and more enlightened why shouldn’t I and Kathy claim to be? Why would you even complain at such a thing? Are you guys really that blind to yourselves? It would appear so because Nate’s every other post is about how he is more enlightened to the “truth” than Christians are about their book and there is not a single comment section where people who believe the bible is not opined as ignorance.
Do I see you complaining with each other about that confidence? about what you now KNOW about believers and.or their beliefs? Do I see you bemoaning the arrogance of it? No its something you only talk about and object to when theres a theist on this blog confident, YES< that more than half of you don't know what you are talking about .
and thats why this confident theist who equally KNOWS he is more enlightened than you on the Bible can't take your charges seriously. He just sees it in reality and truth as just plain utter hypocrisy. You want done o=unto you what you won't do unto others (all "yous" by the way Ruth are collective not personally you).
even more so because the first person to ever hurl invectives and accusations in a discussion I was participation on this blog in was your beloved William not me and to complain about arrogance or condescension with Ark and Arch in your midst just ups the ante makes you all ROFLing hypocritical.
LikeLike
“and yet Ruth I see a guy here who is VERY certain that he is seeing Christianity right even pretending against all logic known to man that he is open minded nevertheless..”
and even so, nate lets you remain, despite your obtuse ridiculousness.
LikeLike
My apologies that my comment seemed like an appropriate jumping off point for an arrogant diatribe.
Mike, in nothing that Nate wrote that you just quoted did he insult another. He didn’t call them liars or stupid or ignorant. He wrote what he’s come to think as a result of his study. That might not suit you, and perhaps it is arrogant, but it’s not calling anyone names or belittling them.
I think you’ve been commenting here long enough to see that I don’t really comment here much. I read a lot that I don’t comment on. I don’t always agree with my fellow atheists and skeptics – you can ask Ark about that one.
I think you’d even have to agree that, for the most part I’ve treated you with respect and tried to carry on civil conversation. There have been a couple of times I’ve gotten a bit frustrated because you seem intent on assassinating character and not just ideas. It’s wearisome. I like to discuss things and don’t mind being challenged in my thoughts.
You feel confident in your position because you’ve studied and that’s the conclusion you’ve come to. Why are you offended at other people coming to a different conclusion. Obviously you believe you’re right or you wouldn’t hold the position you do. Nate is no different. He feels justified in his position because of the study he’s done. He feels he’s right in the position he holds.
Let me ask you this, Mike: There are many Christians who hold very differing positions from you on the interpretation of these scriptures. They are quite confident theirs is right. Do you go and challenge them in the same manner you’ve come to this blog and challenged unbelievers? Are you equally as disdainful of you’re fellow Christians who are getting it wrong?
LikeLike
even more so because the first person to ever hurl invectives and accusations in a discussion I was participation on this blog in was your beloved William not me and to complain about arrogance or condescension with Ark and Arch in your midst just ups the ante makes you all ROFLing hypocritical.
I haven’t gone back to read these comments to see what happened when and where. The one thing I’ve learned in this life that I am sure of is that I don’t get to control the behavior of others. The only thing I’m in control of is myself. I can either choose to behave like an insolent child or I can act like an adult. I choose the latter. I interact with individuals based on how I’m treated. Or not. I don’t have to engage.
The fact is that several of us have called for civility on both sides. Beyond that we can’t control whether it happens or not.
LikeLike
“Mike, in nothing that Nate wrote that you just quoted did he insult another. He didn’t call them liars or stupid or ignorant. ”
Ruth i quoted that in reference to your statement here
“” I’m just extremely skeptical of anyone who seems so certain of anything these days.”
(and yes despite this blog’s narrative nate insults when hes ready and even another atheist in another thread admitted as much. In fact he’s in this very thread suggesting my dishonesty).
and its perfectly on target in regard to that. I’m done on this subject and I stand by everything I wrote in my post before this as an obvious fact. Got to run now. Will look forward to your question on the other thread.
LikeLike
“and yet Ruth I see a guy here who is VERY certain that he is seeing Christianity right even pretending against all logic known to man that he is open minded nevertheless
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/never-going-back/”
Ruth, I just went to Nate’s post mentioned above and I didn’t see where Mike ever commented there, but Silenceofmind did. Maybe everyone else already knows this, but it appears to me that Mike Anthony and Silenceofmind might be the same person. Their commenting style is very similar. Condescending, berating, arrogant , etc , etc.
This would explain a lot. 🙂
LikeLike
“even more so because the first person to ever hurl invectives and accusations in a discussion I was participation on this blog in was your beloved William not me and to complain about arrogance or condescension with Ark and Arch in your midst just ups the ante makes you all ROFLing hypocritical.” – mike
Mike, what’s true is that i came off stronger than you, which I also eventually apologized for. But it’s dishonest to say your entry to this blog was full of grace and humility. I took offense at your tone and meant to be offensive in my reply.
let’s not continue to cry over spilled milk. Youre not being persecuted because youre so righteous, it’s because you’re a jerk.
If you want to refute anyone’s claims or points, okay, that’s what we’re all here for. and you’re not the only one guilty of it, but you do it very, very often, that is cast insults or accusations of laziness, dishonestly, or stupidity toward those you disagree with.
Most of us could shrug that off, because much like Ecc 7:21 teaches, we shouldn’t get too upset when someone does something to us that we’ve done ourselves to others. What gets most of us is when you cry about it when it’s done to you. Let’s not cast rocks from glass houses.
So, if my initial reply to you is the root of all this, then let me apologize again, sincerely – I shouldn’t have gotten so offended and there was no reason for me to reply the way in which i did. I am sorry.
this apology doesn’t mean that I think you’re right. Far from it. I think you owe several apologies yourself, but don’t care if you give them. Address the points and behave they way you’d like others to behave toward you.
And saying that nate is stupid or unjust or is one of the ring leaders in being rude or condescending, isnt convincing anyone of those accusations. It makes you look more that way. nate, of all people, is one of the most patient and courteous i have come upon.
In fact, i’d say he exudes more christian characteristics than you. If god is real, you should hope he judges on belief more than action. You can render evil for evil if you like, or we can move forward, and try to courteously discuss the issues.
LikeLike
It’s unlikely, Nate isn’t the sort. What you have demonstrated, however, along with a propensity to to be evasive, obtuse and wallow in obfuscation, is a profound ignorance of the book you revere and the man god you genuflect to.
All the hallmarks of a rank apologist.
LikeLike
Kathy – not here to bust your chops, you seem like a nice person – I just want to have a friendly discussion.
You said:
– and I agree absolutely, but agreement in witnesse’s stories are a lot like salt in soup -you can have too much, and you can have too little. As you may or may not know, the four Gospels were written anonymously – no one has any idea who wrote them – the four names they bear were later added by the Church. You also may, or may not know know, that the Gospel of “Mark” was the first written, a year or so after 72 AD, “Matthew,” about five or so years after “Luke,” sometime in the early 1st century, and “John” sometime before 150 AD (CE). Lastly, you may or may not know that the entire NT was originally written in Greek, the lingua Franca of the time – in fact, “Jesus” wasn’t even Jesus’ real name, it was only the Greek translation of his actual name: Yeshua.
All that said, “Matthew” was the Greek translation of the Hebrew name, “Levi,” and there was in fact, a Levi, the tax collector, who was a disciple of Yeshua, so we’ve got a good one here, right? Not so much – this “Levi” copies a full 60% of “Mark’s” gospel, and in many instances, does so word for word! The real Levi would have had his own story to tell, and would have no need to copy “Mark’s,” word for word – too much salt in the soup.
Remember that inspiring story in “Matthew” (4:18-21), where Yeshua is strolling along the shore of the sea of Galilee, when he spots Simon (Peter), his brother, Andrew, and brothers James and John, the sons of Zebedee, unloading their boats, and Yesh says, “Come with me, and I will make you fishers of men”? Well, here’s the thing – John, son of Zebedee – IF the Gospel of John was actually written by the real John – wrote his own account of how he met Yeshua (1:35-41), – by the Jordan River, while he, his brother James, and Peter and Andrew were all following John the Baptist – no fish involved, they were just looking for someone to follow, so John waded across the river, stuck up a conversation with Yeshua, the two went off and spent the night together, then came back the next day for James, Peter and Andrew. Not enough salt – the stories don’t even bear the slightest resemblance to each other.
LikeLike
“Maybe everyone else already knows this, but it appears to me that Mike Anthony and Silenceofmind might be the same person. Their commenting style is very similar. Condescending, berating, arrogant , etc , etc.”
Actually never read the comments on that section. the I am certain Christianity is wrong and I will never change my mind but I am open minded was just too ridiculous to follow up on.
But thanks. I will check him out. If you call him arrogant and condescending he just might be a nice and intelligent guy that knew how to answer you back
LikeLike
Actually never read the comments on that section…. I will check him out. If you call him arrogant and condescending he just might be a nice and intelligent guy that knew how to answer you back
Hahah! Well, if you’re not Silenceofmind, and you’ve never read any of his comments that explains why you didn’t get my reference of being able to prove something.
“He can do it.
In three sentences.”
Broken up just like that. lol
LikeLike
“But thanks. I will check him out. If you call him arrogant and condescending he just might be a nice and intelligent guy that knew how to answer you back” – mike
or he’s just a jerk too.
and so you’re saying nate isnt open minded because he wrote a post about leaving Christianity and never going back for various reasons?
Well what about you? you seem certain that Christianity is right and you seem certain you’ll never leave. Again, you’re the pot calling the kettle black.
and if you read nate’s post with an open mind you may see his point. I also think if you’d read the bible like any other book, you may see the issues there as well. But for you,. the bible is right, and probably the only trustworthy source out there. I suspect that you aren’t validating the bible with external evidences, but that you validate external evidences with the bible.
it’s just a suspicion, and I could be wrong – and i can admit that I might be wrong. I have been before, but have made big steps to correct much of those errors now.
LikeLike
” the stories don’t even bear the slightest resemblance to each other.”
Why should they? Matt 4:18-21 isn’t a story about how they met. its about when he called them into the ministry. Who takes off to follow some one full time who they have never met?
LikeLike
“Hahah! Well, if you’re not Silenceofmind, and you’ve never read any of his comments that explains why you didn’t get my reference of being able to prove something.
“He can do it.
In three sentences.”
Wait….. you thought I was this Silence fellow too? I thought KK was just being his usual snarky nonsensical self. Now I really have to check this guy out 🙂
LikeLike
@ Mike,
Wait….. you thought I was this Silence fellow too? I thought KK was just being his usual snarky nonsensical self. Now I really have to check this guy out 🙂
Nah (though one can never be certain because people run around here with a lot of alter-egos) …I was just trying to lighten the conversation with some humor which was apparently completely missed since you don’t seem to be familiar with him.
LikeLike
Mike, when i was a kid, if my dad asked me where i had been, and I said school.
I was at school and after that I went to the gas station and headed home.
And later he found out that after school I went to the movies with my girlfriend and then picked up Bill (because, why wouldnt we?) and then got gas before getting some burgers on our way home – he’d be angry with me – just like I’d feel like my kids were trying to decieve me if they left all that out.
If I had left out getting gas, my dad wouldnt have cared, because that’s inconsequential, but leaving out a date and bill, and food? Those are more significant.
But the issues we’re discussing with the bible arent merely left out details or omitted significant details, but alterations in other details from who was encountered, to how many to where, to what was said, etc.
It gives the impression of collusion to some. trying to get the stories close, but not going to the trouble to over every minute detail afore time, and so it’s the details that are betraying their lie. At least, that’s how it looks to some – like on a crime drama.
You may see these as being perfectly explainable – but that fact that you’d have to provide an explanation should let you at least see where some have questions regarding it.
now again, you may not agree with nate’s conclusion, but that doesnt mean it’s hard to see his problem. It makes sense and is reasonable as well as logical – this isnt hard to comprehend.
LikeLike
“Such irrational thinking by atheists is exactly what they complain about in Christians.”
Lol…thanks guys I am loving him already from his first post 🙂 :). he’s got a blog too I see.
LikeLike
So, Mike, how about explaining to us how Yeshua is the creator of the universe?
Even your new mate SOM has been unable to explain this. Maybe you are cleverer?
LikeLike
@KC – RE: “Gunsmoke” – 9 o’clock, Saturday nights, on CBS!
My parents used to plan their Saturday night around it (they didn’t get out much)! We’d have sandwiches, and chips, and Pepsi on TV trays in front of the television. You may not know whether or not it was going to rain, but you KNEW that “Gunsmoke” would be on at 9 o’clock, Saturday night, on CBS!
The show ran for 20 years, and until “The Simpsons” beat them out a few years ago, had the record of being the longest-running show on TV. Networks today will run a show for 13 or so episodes, take it off for a few months, then put it back on – how is a show supposed to gain a following like that? I’ve seen some quality shows canceled because they were poorly presented.
(Years later, watching re-runs, I would get quite a chuckle watching Matt Dillon riding his buckskin with the “mountains of Kansas” in the background! For those who don’t know, Kansas is flatter than a flounder.)
LikeLike
Ark I actually have a standing invitation for Ruth to ask me anything she wants. Girls tend to earn things boys tend to beg.
Still even if you had earned an invitation Sorry couldn’t find another party hat for you. I’ll send some cake home with Ruth.Probably for the best since all that spittle with cake would be sight to behold at my party. 🙂
LikeLike
Sabio: “problems-with-the-Bible was not my reason for leaving at all.”
William: “The first step for me was the bible itself”
If i may … the very creation of the book know as the “bible” – how it came to be was the death knell for any faith/belief i had remaining … the history of the creation of the book – not so much the content – forced me to recognize the whole thing was man inspired, derived and produced. Committees of men all with religious, political and personal agendas all pouring over ancient texts to determine what would fit their earthly needs to best assume and maintain power and control.
The very thought remains disgusting to me to this day. The ignorant world was hoodwinked by the power brokers of the day – surprise! (not)
LikeLike
“’Such irrational thinking by atheists is exactly what they complain about in Christians.’
Lol…thanks guys I am loving him already from his first post 🙂 :). he’s got a blog too I see.” – mike
yeah, and his blog is more of the same. So since you seem to like throwing insults and avoiding the issues while claiming to “blow the out of the water” you should go over there.
again, to point out the obvious thing here, by calling someone’s well thought out and organized issue “irrational thinking” doesnt make them question their rational position, it only makes them question yours.
For someone who claims to ride so high on the horse or logic, I’m surprised you haven’t realized this yourself yet – unless of course you do know that and have no intention to really discuss anything, but only draw attention to yourself by trying to get in the way of others…
LikeLike
Robert, valid point. I agree. And I often wonder at how long it took me to finally see it. I was blind, but now I see.
I was astonished about how everything really started making sense once I realized the bible was bogus.
LikeLike