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 
“Once again William.. you WEIGH the evidence.. just like a jury does. It’s not a new concept.. it’s simple basic logic.” kathy
okay.
you gonna provide your factual evidence now or was that it?
LikeLike
What IF…
1. CREATION: The Genesis account is a poetic, allegorical, metaphoric explanation of mankind’s condition, with a bent towards faith in an ultimate benevolent Creator-God, but NOT in any way ever intended to be historical fact or scientific truth?
2. 10 PLAGUES: The writer’s interpretation of events was his interpretation, but again, not fact. Perhaps he chose to attribute to God what was not God in action or intent?
3. HARES CHEW THE CUD: A translation error or misconception the writer had that shows his ineptitude in the scientific realm (kind of like when people thought the world was flat).
4. ARPHAXAD: It is my understanding that Luke’s genealogy skipped lots of stuff and was never intended to be accurate to the letter. For me, you are confusing inspiration with inerrancy. I can write under inspiration without my writing being perfectly correct. Meanwhile, I must consider possible transcription errors over hundreds of years of copying.
5. PROBLEMS WITH DANIEL: I imagine for Daniel it was about the story line and not the exact characters. Same point as #4. We can learn from basic principles presented without everything being exact, which is what I think the Bible is really about anyway. It’s not a scientific journal, nor is it without error (considering that people first passed much of it down orally – HUGE room for error there – ever played the phone game? Then, considering errors in copy and THEN adding in errors in translation – I think it’s rather miraculous that so much of the book DOES make sense and jive!)
6. JAIRUS’ DAUGHTER: Again, two differing accounts from two differing people. I don’t know anyone personally who see the exact same event without recounting it slightly differently, do you? These are people writing.
7. and 8. CENTURION AND HIGH PRIEST: Close to same point I made in #6.
9. 430 YEARS: Easily a copy error, or a misconception, or most likely, some number that had significance for the Jews which we have lost the meaning for.
10. JESUS’ BIRTH: I only want to address what you said about Matthew’s “misuse of the O.T.”. A careful reading of the N.T. will glean you any number of complete REtranslations or REdefinitions of O.T. Scripture passages by the N.T. writers, Paul and Matthew in particular. I don’t think they were necessarily refuting the O.T. writer, but rather, reinterpreting events, sayings, etc. in light of Jesus, which, by the way, is my point about reading the O.T. in light of the person of Jesus. That’s exactly what they began to do even as early as the first N.T. writings. The Church’s unwillingness to do this today is what will be her downfall.
11. TRIUMPHAL ENTRY: Same point as #10.
12. JUDAS’ DEATH: Same point as #’s 6, 7, & 8 – accounts from different people WILL be different.
13. THE CRUCIFIXION: For me the lesson is more important than the details. And I bet if you asked each of the 5 people standing beside my sister’s death bed to describe the experience, you might not recognize them all to even have occurred in the same room.
14. THE RESURRECTION: I don’t want to take the time to read your arguments, sorry.
15. HELL: You already know a lot about what I believe in this regard. I wonder if you’d be willing to take 15 minutes and listen to this?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F27jxwHDrzM
16. EVIL: Sorry, no time to read another post.
17. THE BIBLE’S MORALITY: Where the Bible differs from anyone’s basic understanding of morality (like murder, stealing, etc.) and seems to attribute evil to God, I would argue that the writer got it completely wrong and that God would NEVER act less moral than I do/would/could. Like a broken record: read the O.T. through the character lens of Jesus and your problems (many of them) will dissolve.
Thanks for making me think, again, Nate! Always a pleasure stopping by. Oh, and this 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
is actually something I can really get behind! It is ALL about LOVE. And I believe LOVE WINS! 😀
LikeLike
William said:
“kathy, what’s the evidence you speak of? How do you know the bible is truth?
I’m just gonna go out here on a limb and guess that you think the bible is from god because it claims to be. is that close?”
Are you kidding? What is the evidence?? Just please go back and read my comments.. and look up the definition of evidence.
This is what the word “ignorance” is based on .. IGNORING.
LikeLike
Ruth said:
“Just like our very existence isn’t logical. Your argument shows bias..
Our very existence isn’t logical so…Jesus. Okay. Got it now.”
You continue to demonstrate your lack of objectivity.
LikeLike
“Are you kidding? What is the evidence?? Just please go back and read my comments.. and look up the definition of evidence.” Kathy
I’m not kidding, this is just stupid. Your definition of evidence didnt share any evidence of the bible. In fact, i dont see how the bible meets your definition.
where the “broken window” that your definition talked about? what is there that we can point to, like the broken window points to a breaking and entering?
Your definition talked about oral statements and material objects that are admissible as testimony in a court of law… you have an old book of claims, which is hearsay at best and is inadmissible.
so yes, you provided a definition, but haven’t provided actual factual evidence. are you going to or are you just going to keep avoiding the question and call me ignorant and liberal?
or did you really intend to present martyrs and believers and evidence of the divine?
if not, and i hope not, please provide some of this evince you keep saying so abundantly clear. and if you cannot, what then?
LikeLike
@William..
Your comment at 2:50 just continues to show ignorance on your part.. I’ve already pointed out that 1) those things are TRIVIAL.. 2) there are translation/ language challenges along with cultural differences that you COULD take into consideration and that you CHOOSE not to.. and you also COULD 3) objectively consider the possible explanations very well COULD explain the seeming contradictions.. and you & Nate and very atheist here who supposedly was a “true” believer , just can’t find it within them to give God the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
“You continue to demonstrate your lack of objectivity.”
there’s a lot of that going around lately…
LikeLike
“Your comment at 2:50 just continues to show ignorance on your part.. I’ve already pointed out that 1) those things are TRIVIAL.. 2) there are translation/ language challenges along with cultural differences that you COULD take into consideration and that you CHOOSE not to.. and you also COULD 3) objectively consider the possible explanations very well COULD explain the seeming contradictions.. and you & Nate and very atheist here who supposedly was a “true” believer , just can’t find it within them to give God the benefit of the doubt.” – kathy
I’m sorry, but this is was pretty stupid. I dont think I’m the one who keeps showing ignorance or lack of objectivity. The only ignorant think I’m doing is trying to rationalize with someone who obviously cares very little for reason.
But fine. I wont argue that point with you.
the evidence you keep talking about? why dont you show that, or some of if? are you purposely keeping me in suspense? I think the evidence may help, if it’s as easy to see as you claim?
LikeLike
“But fine. I wont argue that point with you.”
Because you don’t have an argument to my claim that you are biased? That’s definitely my guess.
“the evidence you keep talking about? why dont you show that, or some of if? are you purposely keeping me in suspense? I think the evidence may help, if it’s as easy to see as you claim?”
Archeological evidence, historical corroboration, martyrs, fulfilled prophecies, Christianity’s survival in spite of the worldwide oppression since it’s start.
LikeLike
Me ,“There was NO argument to your points. Just putting them in one comment box so we can all see them. 🙂 ”
Kathy, “ONLY a liberal would say this.. it makes it much much easier than having to actually ARGUE the points.. doesn’t it? hilarious.”.
I have argued points here so that’s not the case. I selected some of your and Mike’s comments and placed them in 1 comment box so that we could all take a look collectively to see the rhetoric apologists tend to use.
The only thing hilarious is some of the statements the 2 of you have made. And yet some are sad as well.
And YOU 2 would prefer the US Gov’t be ran with people like yourselves ! Now that’s something WE should all think about !
LikeLike
Kathy, provide real, empirical evidence – not arguments, or stories based on hearsay found in ancient manuscripts.
Here are two examples of the kind of evidence we’re looking for:
1) Christians claim that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead. If true, then that means he still exists. Please arrange a physical meeting so that we can examine the scars on his hands and the wound in his side, just like his disciples did.
2) Fulfill the promise made in Mark 16:17-18, where Jesus states that true believers will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed.”
LikeLike
Sorry Nate, Mike Here
its not going to go that way. If you are straightforward and honest and say that you have banned me for disagreeing with you and/or whatever else you wish to claim then fine. I’ll honor that in a heart beat.
However you if you try to come up with some way to say that you have never banned anyone by putting them on infinite moderation then hey since you haven’t said I was banned I’ll just consider it a glitch on your part and exercise my right to change my own username etc.
Really your call. Do the right thing and you can go back to having all the rubber stampers go along merrily but when they are asking where I am and posting things to and about me and you have given me nor them no indication that I am banned then no deal my man.
Just pony up and be honest and if you just forgot then hey – here I am. remember by finkelstein debunking post
make sure kathy gets to see both sides. Its about finding the truth right?
LikeLike
Kathy, Mike A Here
I’ll be trying to get this over to you on twitter in case Nate removes this before you read it but you asked a question about Arch’s evidence. I answered but perhaps Nate was busy and didn’t get to approve it – any way here
arch provided one video based on the Bible unearthed which was written by a biblical minamilist – Finkelstein. Probably the most interesting thing to you about FInkelstein is that he adheres to some of the same alleged contradictions that you have debunked here. In other words he is arch’s hero in part because he is a skeptic and wiling to buy contradictions which are imaginary.
You must have missed a big chunk of this thread where Arch and company refused to address the problems of Egyptian chronology and pretended like I was making it up. I believe it was arch or ark who actually claimed their were no problems whatsoever with chronology only to be slapped by my link to their beloved wikipedia showing there are huge areas of concern
Finkelstein relies heavily on suspect chronologies to make his assessments and most of his arguments rely on no evidence rather counter evidence. In regard to counter evidence realize that if the chronologies are wrong (and quite a few people admit to the possibility) then most of Finkelstein’s conclusions go poof
More devastating to arch’s Reliance on Finkelstein is that Finkelstein is ALREADY beginning to be proven wrong. he staked a considerable amount of his credibility claiming that David could have been little more than a tribal leader and its his theory that is being debunked with recent finds
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text
“”Of course we’re not looking at the palace of David!” Finkelstein roars at the very mention of Mazar’s discovery. “I mean, come on. I respect her efforts. I like her—very nice lady. But this interpretation is—how to say it?—a bit naive.”
Now it is Finkelstein’s theory that is under siege. On the heels of Mazar’s claim to have discovered King David’s palace, two other archaeologists have unveiled remarkable finds. Twenty miles southwest of Jerusalem in the Elah Valley—the very spot where the Bible says the young shepherd David slew Goliath—Hebrew University professor Yosef Garfinkel claims to have unearthed the first corner of a Judaean city dating to the exact time that David reigned. Meanwhile, 30 miles south of the Dead Sea in Jordan, a University of California, San Diego professor named Thomas Levy has spent the past eight years excavating a vast copper-smelting operation at Khirbat en Nahas. Levy dates one of the biggest periods of copper production at the site to the tenth century B.C.—which, according to the biblical narrative, is when David’s antagonists the Edomites dwelled in this region. (However, scholars like Finkelstein maintain that Edom did not emerge until two centuries later.) The very existence of a large mining and smelting operation fully two centuries before Finkelstein’s camp maintains the Edomites emerged would imply complex economic activity at the exact time that David and Solomon reigned. “It’s possible that this belonged to David and Solomon,” Levy says of his discovery. “I mean, the scale of metal production here is that of an ancient state or kingdom.”
Levy and Garfinkel—both of whom have been awarded grants by the National Geographic Society—support their contentions with a host of scientific data, including pottery remnants and radiocarbon dating of olive and date pits found at the sites. If the evidence from their ongoing excavations holds up, yesteryear’s scholars who touted the Bible as a factually accurate account of the David and Solomon story may be vindicated.
As Eilat Mazar says with palpable satisfaction, “This is the end of Finkelstein’s school.”
Have thing s gotten better for Finkelstein? ummn Nope
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/18/archaeologists-say-uncovered-king-david-palace/
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ruined-palace-of-bible-s-king-david-solves-3000-year-riddle-155746848.html#Kw8Fc2l
Is the above finds in high contention? Yes but it only underlines how tentative things are in archaeology and that when people like arch barf that this or that has been proven its usually out of their ignorance of how many times archaeologist and skeptics have said something was mythical in the Bible have had to eat crow.
It aint looking good for the Poor nate skeptic crew’s love of Finkelstein. As the finds come
rolling in
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/king-david-citadel-found_n_5272619.html
http://www.bible-archeology.com/2014/06/king-davids-citadel-discovered.html
If his technique and conclusion were so faulty with David why should he be trusted on anything?
LikeLike
k the following links pretty much destroy arch’s golden boy as being wrong on key areas already
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/18/archaeologists-say-uncovered-king-david-palace/
Is the above finds in high contention? Yes but it only underlines how tentative things are in archaeology and that when people like arch barf that this or that has been proven its usually out of their ignorance of how many times archaeologist and skeptics have said something was mythical in the Bible have had to eat crow.
If his technique and conclusion were so faulty with David why should he be trusted on anything?
LikeLike
You’re not being moderated, Mike, so get over yourself. When you write a comment with so many links, WordPress thinks its spam and flags you automatically. Once I saw that I approved it — before I even saw your paranoid follow-up comment.
LikeLike
If you want to go back to using the “Mike Anthony” user name, go for it. The only thing that stopped you was your number of links. And sorry if my last comment was a bit snippy — the tone of yours caught me off guard because I hadn’t realized you first tried leaving that comment last night.
LikeLike
I can take that Nate (even though the post was made from yesterday and only got taken off now that I commented) but you can skip the paranoia accusation. lets not pretend you haven’t banned before so theres no reason I wouldn’t think you would do it again. Plus theres no fear on my part of being banned from your blog so perhaps you should get over that idea.
LikeLike
No but thanks for that offer. As it turns out that wasn’t the main reason for my name change. i had disbanded my google plus acccount for other reasons and that was associated with that login here
LikeLike
Ruth no one is amazed at your lack of understanding of Christianity anymore. its just a ho hum fact you didn’t have the basics down
LikeLike
Thanks Mike for the info.. I’m definitely going to check out the links and learn about this aspect of the debate.. the archeological evidence and all that goes along with that. I believe it’s among the strongest evidence for the truth of the Bible.
And although I haven’t known Nate long, your suspicions of being banned are completely justified.. it’s how liberals, in general, are. Nate seems like he might be a rare exception but overall, instead of liberals acknowledging that they are wrong.. they try to silence those who prove them wrong instead.. and then continue on with their faulty views. It’s a mystery to me.. I truly believe it’s how they are wired.. but God wouldn’t have not given them a way out.. they just choose to not take it.. over and over and over. Their pride and ego come first.. before everything else.
LikeLike
Ron, you said:
“Here are two examples of the kind of evidence we’re looking for:
1) Christians claim that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead. If true, then that means he still exists. Please arrange a physical meeting so that we can examine the scars on his hands and the wound in his side, just like his disciples did.
2) Fulfill the promise made in Mark 16:17-18, where Jesus states that true believers will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed.”
Sorry Ron.. it’s pretty clear that you aren’t going to get the kind of evidence you demand… but.. just keep demanding it.. and see how that turns out.
LikeLike
Kathy,
How about providing some of the evidence you were talking to William about? Like fulfilled prophecies, etc?
LikeLike
Nate, here are some of the fulfilled prophecies..
http://therefinersfire.org/recent_prophecy.htm
LikeLike
“How about providing some of the evidence you were talking to William about? Like fulfilled prophecies, etc”
If you promise to not merely handwave. Game on. Up to this point I have mostly discussed and rebutted your contradiction points but its perhaps time for me to move beyond that. Since I keep hearing there is no evidence. We have previously discussed Daniels 7O week prophecy and the 360 day year. There is another biblical calculation that corroborates that as explained here
http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/mathprophecy2.html
I would be interested regardless of your interpretation what you think the odds are that the same biblical numbers (and there is zero doubt that Revelations includes a 360 day year and daniel indicates a 70 weeks is to be cut out of something) when using a multiplication and numbers called for in the surface text of the Bible (no gematria or Bible codes) would come to the years of 1948 and 1967
Then we can discuss a series of prophecies related to the return of Israel all of which clearly happened after the Bible was written
LikeLike
“Nate, here are some of the fulfilled prophecies..
http://therefinersfire.org/recent_prophecy.htm”
Nice kathy . A few need a little refining but there are some good ones there with a little bit more background. I have a few more to add as well. this probable would have done better as rebuttals under does the bible have real prophecies
LikeLike