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
“KC – How’s that Assyrian-Egyptian highway coming along?”
Hey Arch, last time I checked they had all of the Toll Booths installed, but no highway . 🙂
LikeLike
“KC, RE: “Doesn’t matter how many copies I could have. All of them together aren’t worth the original.” – I had the same thought about the smashing of the Ten Commandments – would a man, who personally watched his god carve those in stone, with fire, have smashed them so easily? A man, on the other hand, who had a second in command – Joshua – who was a stone-cutter and could as easily carve a second, as he did the first – he might have tossed them down and broken them!”
or breaking the originals may have just been a convenient excuse as to why the set that had to live by looked like crappy work done my human hand.
LikeLike
“No bars and gates like a city wall either. sorry.”
huge concrete barriers… but even if this wall doesnt pas your test are you also claiming that israel is a state of peace and safety?
LikeLike
Hey William, you are so correct . I must admit, Mike is the ultimate apologetic. I have never seen anyone spin like he can. He has to be getting dizzy. 🙂
LikeLike
Amen to THAT! 😀 Kindness is indeed a lost art – most especially in the churches (and other religions, mind). But then, religion does not lend itself to kindness.
LikeLike
Ruth, I have shared with you before words of Bishop John Shelby Spong. I thought his comments this morning were interesting.
“Atonement Theology” assumes that human life, though created in the image of God, is now both fallen and evil. It assumes that God is a being who can be “offended” by human disobedience, is incapable of forgiving and must, therefore, exact the deserved punishment on the sinful human life. It assumes that Jesus’ death was the punishment that God required and that Jesus’ willingness to satisfy God’s anger on our behalf has brought us the reconciliation for which we yearned. Consequently, it assumes that salvation comes to us through the suffering and death of Jesus, enabling us to reclaim the status for which we had originally been created.”
“When one strips away the piety of the ages and states its premise boldly, as I have sought to do above, “Atonement Theology” is revealed as a barbaric idea, hardly worthy of a deity whose nature is supposed to be that of love. “Atonement Theology” needs to be seen for what it is and purged from Christianity. It is not about grace, as is so often claimed; it is about wrath. “Atonement Theology” is wrong at every point.”
LikeLike
“One original now would provide nothing over the “millions” and I for one would hate it because it would give whoever had control of it the ability to make up things that were not in there.”
Mike, I just told William I felt you were the ultimate apologetic because you could “spin” like no other.
Sadly your spinning has reached the level of delusion and denial as you have just displayed with this comment.
LikeLike
KC,
Thank you for sharing. I agree with John Shelby Spong. He apparently isn’t a Christian either. Nor, as has been pointed out to me recently, were the converts at Pentecost. The very idea that blood atonement is required to appease the God is nothing short of barbaric. It makes him no better than any other god. That is not love. It will, no doubt, be pointed out that it is God – not I – who defines love.
The simple fact is, these fundamentalists believe that their God is a God of love and a God of wrath. They relish in the thought of the wrath part for those who disagree with them. They believe that this wrath is justice – justice for disobedience to their God. That they can justify blood lust in this manner says more about them than it does about me for not believing it.
LikeLike
“huge concrete barriers…”
Who you going to believe yourself or your beloved wiki that says 90% of it is fence.? 🙂
“but even if this wall doesnt pas your test are you also claiming that israel is a state of peace and safety?'”
You might try reading the text Sparkie. Context. Its relative to the fact that they are about to be attacked. So totally safe? Nope. At ease without needing City walls and bars around their cites? Apparently. But don’t worry Nate’s invented a no escape hatch for ya. Unless all prophecies are fulfilled then none of them can be.
That hand is waving in the air – Like it just don’t care.
Hey some bonuses to Ezek 38 is some of the same alliances today already exist. go figure
LikeLike
“One original now would provide nothing over the “millions” and I for one would hate it because it would give whoever had control of it the ability to make up things that were not in there.”
Apparently God couldn’t protect his original thoughts on papyrus and keep it from corruption. Just like he couldn’t protect and keep the copies from corruption.
Ain’t God grand indeed?
LikeLike
“Sadly your spinning has reached the level of delusion and denial as you have just displayed with this comment.”
Kc what can I say? You know how crushed I am that your superior intelligence sees me as delusional…wait a minute. Whats wrong with that line?
LikeLike
“Mike, I just told William I felt you were the ultimate apologetic because you could “spin” like no other.”
Oh my updates on what you told William. is this like Soap opera spoilers?
Look KC I don’t care if you are not sophisticated enough to get the point. Originals would be like alleged pieces of the cross. Subject to worship, granting leverage to those who owned it and every much as open to corruption as copies since only a select few would have access to them. IN fact as a protestant I would shudder if they existed because they would probably be in the hand off the RCC. So believe it or not can;t understand the point or not. I’d rather there be copies all over the world that no one can control or limit access to because for all of the clap trap you and others have put up no major doctrine has been affected by their being copies ad the church has done very well without original relics to fawn over.
LikeLike
” I’d rather there be copies all over the world that no one can control or limit access to because for all of the clap trap you and others have put up no major doctrine has been affected by their being copies ad the church has done very well without original relics to fawn over.”
Copies of what Mike ??? You have no originals to compare them to.
We have the original of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution proudly on display at the National Archives Building in Washington, D,C, . NO ONE questions this . ANYONE can go there with their little $2 Copies from the Souvenir Shop and compare them to the originals.
YOU can’t do that with your Bible Copy.
Case closed. You lose….
LikeLike
Apparently God couldn’t protect his original thoughts on papyrus and keep it from corruption. Just like he couldn’t protect and keep the copies from corruption.
Mysterious ways, Ruth… mysterious ways.
LikeLike
I’d rather there be copies all over the world that no one can control or limit access to because for all of the clap trap you and others have put up no major doctrine has been affected by their being copies ad the church has done very well without original relics to fawn over.
I don’t know how anyone could know this since there are no originals. Of course, why would anyone need an original to fawn over and worship when the copies suffice for that purpose?
LikeLike
Mysterious ways, Ruth… mysterious ways.
And who doesn’t love a good mystery?
LikeLike
“YOU can’t do that with your Bible Copy.”
NO I can read my copy at home. put mine up and no body can whisk it away or change it overnight in its display case.
“Copies of what Mike ??? You have no originals to compare them to. ”
Don’t need to. I have the multitude of copies to compare them to. Provided they agree enough (few discrepancies allowed in some are no problem) then I know some care was taken to copy them. I find a verse in Africa matching a verse in russia a written at different times the sheer impossibility of the coincidence tells me its a valid reading. Its the difference between getting a message from one source and getting it from many as a check against one . Heres the thing
Lets say We found or had the original. How would we know it was the original? and try again proving what new doctrine has emerged in the church because of not having the originals? Your last attempt was an embarrassment since almost all the alleged missing lines were in other Synoptic Gospels
“Case closed. You lose….’
ah thats what was wrong with that line I wrote before….the intelligence part. Thanks for reminding me KC!
LikeLike
“I don’t know how anyone could know this since there are no originals.”
And who said there were no originals? or are you just assuming since none survived to present day the church never had them? You’d be wrong…..again.
“Of course, why would anyone need an original to fawn over and worship when the copies suffice for that purpose?”
why would anyone want to worship a copy with no direct connection to an apostle or prophet? think
LikeLike
@Mike
Are suggesting the church had originals?
LikeLike
“Don’t need to. I have the multitude of copies to compare them to. Provided they agree enough (few discrepancies allowed in some are no problem) then I know some care was taken to copy them. ”
Again, what do you have copies of ???? “Provided they agree enough (few discrepancies allowed in some are no problem) then I know some care was taken to copy them”
How would you know they have few discrepancies ? From each other, yes. But how do you know what they were copied from ?
Your argument is very shallow. Sorry
LikeLike
If you were honest enough with yourself and studied the history of how the bible was composed and then look at what we have today, you couldn’t make these statements with a straight face.
Good thing we can’t see your expressions over the internet eh ? 🙂
LikeLike
“If you were honest enough with yourself and studied the history of how the bible was composed ”
Yawn the usual claim. If you do not agree with us you have never studied. and you said my argument is shallow. Sorry KK I caught you guys in so many things things you were clueless on that just won’t work. Try it on the next newbie that comes along though – might just work
“Good thing we can’t see your expressions over the internet eh ?”
Yes for your sake I suppose. It might be infuriating to see me giggling at your posts. 🙂
LikeLike
“How would you know they have few discrepancies ? From each other, yes. But how do you know what they were copied from ?”
Well lets see. Aunt Millie wrote a letter about her trip to India and its been copied a hundred times as they were sentt around the world with various family members copying. 85 of them recount the story of how she found a dog and called him Pete, a few said peter and one said it was a cat named mildred. I think it fair to say we would know the original account was that she had found a dog because the sheer impossibility that they all just happened to have come to the dog named pete in India is rather large.
The truth is the fact that she had come to find a dog named pete would actually be surer than if one original had existed because that could have been faked. If over time however all these copies surfaced the fact would be settled.
It a simple example that has a large chance of flying right over your head but there it is.
Heres the rub though and the stupidity of the arguments coming from atheist. It wouldn’t matter squat if we said we had the originals. if it suited you you would just say – how do you know thats the original? and you would deny it and even claim the copies were the original. It would make no difference to your arguments
LikeLike
Actually it would make a huge difference, and if you are unable to see why then more fool you.
LikeLike
And who said there were no originals? or are you just assuming since none survived to present day the church never had them? You’d be wrong…..again.
Which church had these originals? Was it the RCC or the Greek Orthodox Church? And wouldn’t either of these have had control over the original which were copied?
LikeLike