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 
“an objective person would say ‘I don’t know’ if Christianity is the correct explanation.” – an intelligent, objective person would say that the NT, which is our only source of information regarding Christianity, is so riddled with misinformation and downright fabrications, that belief in Santa Claus is nearly as reliable. If I asked you if you believed in Santa Claus, would your answer be, “I don’t know”?
LikeLike
Ark’s right, this does point to a problem right out of the gate. How many parents have to tell their children, “don’t think of anyone else as your parents — we’re the only true ones!”?
It never even has to come up, because kids know their parents. If God had made himself known to people long ago, they never would have needed to invent false gods. It’s as simple as that. The fact that every culture who invented gods never invented the same god twice shows that there wasn’t a “true” one showing up anywhere.
LikeLike
Ark said:
“What you , and most every christian, fail to acknowledge is that while one may find certain positive attributes within the doctrine of Christianity ( as one might find in every religion) it is the downside that is the concern of all right minded critical thinking people: namely that f one does not follow Christianity and acknowledge Yeshua a as a saviour ( saviour for what has never been adequately explained) one is doomed to spend eternity in Hell.”
What do you mean? I don’t fail to acknowledge the “down side” at all. Are you saying that because there is a “down side” that is an argument against it’s truth? How exactly?
What we want has ZERO bearing on the actual truth. If we want a religion that offers “peace & contentment”.. we are free to adhere to that religion and it’s teachings.. but as far as it’s truth goes, it could be one giant lie. Who wants to lie to themselves? Apparently liberals / atheists do.. they see no problem with it.. just as long as no one is telling them they are making the wrong choice.. that seems to ruin it for them.. not even thinking how much their beliefs will be “ruined” when they DO find out the truth.. and that their choice, based on THEIR will, was not it.
“And, contrary to the ”ownership” claims stated/suggested by you and many other Christians of the apologetic ilk, this spiteful nature is not in any way indicative of a creator deity who claims that love is the be all and end all.”
“spiteful nature”.. wow.. poor Ark, the “victim”.. you choose to reject God and what He’s done for you.. and then YOU feel wronged. How would you feel if you gave your life to save someone else and they called you spiteful for wanting some acknowledgement and gratitude… that they just didn’t feel was necessary. You’d be hurt.. DEEPLY hurt.
You/ atheists fail to look at the big picture. You don’t ask the big questions.. why are we here? How did we get here, do we have a purpose? What is it? etc etc.
You all insist on referring to science for your answers to how and why.. but you fail to acknowledge that science argues AGAINST the logic of our very existence.. yet we are here. That SHOULD be enough for you to AT LEAST consider the possibility that we are created beings, part of a plan, fulfilling a purpose. If there WERE a valid possible theory for how we came to be, I’d say you all might have a foundational argument.. but when you use the argument of science WHILE science contradicts our very existence, I only see ignorance.
You’re frustrated.. as all atheists are.. I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to be where you are.. a place where you can’t seem to humble yourselves no matter what the consequences.. but that’s how powerful pride is. And why God warns us about it.
And I never claimed I could “demonstrate” anything.. I’m only claiming what I believe AND WHY I believe it. I’m just asking for you all for the same, why you believe what you do and why you dismiss those things that I don’t. My claim is that your dismissals are based on lack of objectivity.
LikeLike
“Ark’s right, this does point to a problem right out of the gate. How many parents have to tell their children, “don’t think of anyone else as your parents — we’re the only true ones!”?”
Ark’s wrong. How many people make up false parents out of thin air rather than just say they are orphans? How many children have non physical parents? How quickly the analogy falls apart eh?
“It never even has to come up, because kids know their parents. If God had made himself known to people long ago, they never would have needed to invent false gods.”
A presumption of your history does not count as evidence of that history. People made up Gods to replace the God they had disobeyed is at least one historical reference though dubious you will claim. Where is your historical reference that states the “parent” was made up to begin with?
“The fact that every culture who invented gods never invented the same god twice shows that there wasn’t a “true” one showing up anywhere”
By that rationale you could just as well argue that the similarities between them speaks to the traits of the original. to turn your analogy on its head. Why would “children” who had never known of any concept of parents make them up if they had no initial parent
I mean besides evolution goofed and gave all them this concept of god or gods in intellect germ form to begin with?
LikeLike
“it is the downside that is the concern of all right minded critical thinking people”
Don’t you love it when the minority try to use the No true Scotsman fallacy on the majority in sheer desperation?
“You’re frustrated.. as all atheists are.. I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to be where you are.. a place where you can’t seem to humble yourselves no matter what the consequences.. but that’s how powerful pride is. And why God warns us about it.”
On a side note I think they got their hopes up that perhaps their chances had increased of you flaking out on your faith. That may add to the frustration
“And I never claimed I could “demonstrate” anything..”
I did but early in the process it seems they got the impression that whether I had demonstrated anything or not was going to be a matter of their vote to settle
LikeLike
Nate,
me:
“And so, you are making the claim that the compelling evidence is equal for the God of the Bible and the thousands of others? Equal in martyrs, fulfilled prophecies, archeological evidence? Then where are all of their followers?? Yes, lots of followers for Islam but again.. they get “punished” if they don’t follow Muhammad. So…
you: I think this illustrates one of our key differences. You seem to assume that God exists, so whichever religion is best must be the right one. But I’m not looking for the best of the bunch — I’m looking for the right one. You can look for the best apple in a barrel of rotten ones, but it’s still going to be rotten — that’s what we have with Christianity. Even if it is the best (and I don’t think it is), it still has too many problems to be the work of an all-good, all-powerful being.”
This was the context for my question: ” What is the best if not Christianity? I really want to know what it is.. ”
And then you said:
“We’re misunderstanding one another. I didn’t say Buddhism was true, nor am I a Buddhist. You asked me what I thought the best religion was: I think Buddhism is a better religion than the other religions I’m familiar with, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s true.
And if you think Buddhism needs credentials, then you don’t understand Buddhism. It needs no more “credentials” than geometry does.”
1) Did you really not understand what I meant?
2) Why would I care about which religion you *liked* the most?
3) Aren’t we debating what the TRUTH is?
I don’t understand how you could have mistaken my question.
And why would Buddhism be the “best” is it isn’t even based on truth?? Makes no sense.
And if Buddhism makes ANY claims, or TEACHINGS.. like we are reincarnated.. then they SHOULD have something to back up their claims.. any rational person would require this. This is just another question that I’m more confused about after you’ve answered it.. because the answers don’t make sense.
LikeLike
me: “The general understanding is that they wanted to keep out any writings that were not inspired.
you: And how could they determine which were which?
By using the most original, earliest and most reliable information they do have about Jesus and what He said. And by weeding out anything that strayed from those foundational teachings.
LikeLike
Nate said:
”
Worship Me only…or else”
Ark’s right, this does point to a problem right out of the gate. How many parents have to tell their children, “don’t think of anyone else as your parents — we’re the only true ones!”?
It never even has to come up, because kids know their parents. If God had made himself known to people long ago, they never would have needed to invent false gods. It’s as simple as that. ”
Mike answered this but I’ll go ahead and confirm his answer in my own words also..
First, yet again, it has to be pointed out that our relationship with God is similar to a parent child relationship.. but there are some major fundamental differences also Nate.. this is just like me having to continue to remind you that you can’t make assumptions about what God “would” do.. because He’s God.. and you’re a human being… MAJOR fundamental difference.
So, NO! It is most definitely NOT “as simple as that”.. Nate! Please try to understand this. You all fail to acknowledge God for who He is.. because then you would have to HUMBLE yourselves before Him.. and that’s where the problem lies.. instead of humbling yourselves, you judge Him.. over and over.. and it kind of breaks my heart to read these things from people who claim to have once loved God.. because I FEEL how it is breaking God’s heart. None of you acknowledged what God did for you.. but I know it, and God knows it. It’s truly heartbreaking.. every blessing you have is because of God and His love for you.
LikeLike
Ark said:
“Simple common sense would alert the reader that any deity that openly states ‘He’ is a jealous god already has serious, human-like emotional issues.
“Worship Me only…or else”
And this is one of the central, most pertinent parts of Christian doctrine that causes so many Christians to deconvert, and why fear and ignorance is encouraged through indoctrination ( especially of children) to maintain a hold over adult Christians such as yourself.
It really is a disgusting practice and those proponents of such grossly dehumanizing tactics should be brought to book once and for all.”
Atheists just can’t judge God enough it seems. Who are you to decide what God can and can’t feel?? What you perceive as “jealousy” might not even mean the same thing for Him. He has every right (besides the obvious SOVEREIGN right).. to feel jealous/ aka hurt if we reject Him for an evil false god after He’s done so much for us.. out of His LOVE for us.
God doesn’t want us to worship false evil gods.. because even though they are false, there is an evil force behind them. Which is God’s ultimate enemy. How would YOU like it if your wife/ gf, left you for your enemy? Especially if you’ve done nothing but love her?
Why do I have to keep explaining these simple concepts to you all?? It’s because you all don’t apply OBJECTIVITY. So I have to s p e l l it out for you.
LikeLike
RE: “Sounds about right…..very, er, dare I say, Christian?”
LikeLike
Big Picture Kathy, RE: “By using the most original, earliest and most reliable information they do have about Jesus and what He said” – for the zillionth time, how did they know what Yeshua said, when none of the Gospel writers who wrote about what he allegedly said, ever met him?
LikeLike
Big Picture Kathy – please pass this on to your buddy/lover/husband/father/grandfather, Mike:
“Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car.”
— G.K. Chesterton —
LikeLike
““my claim is that Christianity offers the most rational, best explanation for our existence” – then I misinterpreted or misrecalled, either way, your claim is absurd. Other than, “In the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth,” without any evidence whatsoever to back it up, THAT is the only explanation the Bible offers for our existence.”
Well.. then AGAIN, give a better explanation Arch. Why do I have to keep repeating this request that I never get an answer to?? Why is that Arch?
LikeLike
““an objective person would say ‘I don’t know’ if Christianity is the correct explanation.” – an intelligent, objective person would say that the NT, which is our only source of information regarding Christianity, is so riddled with misinformation and downright fabrications, that belief in Santa Claus is nearly as reliable. If I asked you if you believed in Santa Claus, would your answer be, “I don’t know”?”
Funny how you bring up Santa Claus.. I was just thinking about how you all never complain about Santa Claus.. why not? He doesn’t bring you gifts anymore.. no new cars etc.. surely you don’t believe you’ve been “bad”.. not believing in sin and all.. so.. why aren’t you judging Santa like you do God? Why aren’t you calling Santa “lazy” or “selfish” or “cruel” to children.. etc etc ?
For all your claims that God doesn’t exist, you sure do spend a lot of time judging Him.
LikeLike
Nate, you said:
“When I read your question to William, I thought, “why wouldn’t / couldn’t he do it physically?”
What would be wrong with that? According to the Bible, that’s exactly what he did for most of recorded history, so why stop? Mike has said that it didn’t work well when he spoke directly, but if that’s true, what rational being would think that writing it down would be better???”
That’s how YOU see it.. maybe God has reasons you don’t know about for not giving us empirical proof today. Again, you are making assumptions about what God “would” do.. often, your reasons for not believing are based on your idea of how God should act and what He should do. Those are horrible reasons to use to turn away from God. You can’t possibly know His reasons for everything He does. Making those kinds of assumptions about God just doesn’t make rational sense.
“How many times have we all had the experience of writing something to someone only to have them misunderstand something we said? How many times have we thought, “no, that’s a better conversation to have in person so there’s no misunderstanding”?”
So, you have it all figured out.. God should clearly do it THAT way.. or else He doesn’t exist. I’ve given you my theory.. the written word gives us the room to CHOOSE which way to go.. you can make assumptions on what God “would” do if He were “real”… or you can humble yourself and realize that God is much too complex, along with all of His creation, for us to possibly have any clue of His reasons.
“There is nothing wrong with empirical evidence. As William said in his reply, there are plenty of people who aren’t Christians because they honestly don’t believe it’s true. They’re not being rebellious, or evil; they just truly don’t believe it. That could easily be remedied by direct communication from God.”
Again, I’ll post Jesus’ words… “seek and ye shall find..” . All we have to do is seek with our hearts, and God will take care of our struggle to believe/ have faith. Maybe if atheists didn’t judge God so much and instead try to have some gratitude for what He’s done for you, you’d find Him.
LikeLike
William, you said:
“I actually, think it’s the other way around. The writers of the bible all claim to speak for god – just like the old prophet.
How do we check those claims? well, it’s already been pointed out that we cant check or measure the spiritual claims, like “what’s heaven look like,” or “what exactly happens after we die” but we can verify many of the physical claims. I think tyre is a good example, but we disagree there somehow, so how about Jesus saying that a seed must die before it will grow? We can measure that. we can verify that – and it’s false.”
Jesus didn’t say ALL of the seed must die. And Ezekiel didn’t say that ALL of Tyre was going to be under water. Part of the seed DOES die.. and part of Tyre DID end up under water and will never be rebuilt. If the prophecy said “all” of Tyre would be under water and never rebuilt then you’d have a valid argument.. there are portions all throughout the 3 chapter prophecy where it’s clear that it is NOT referring to ALL of Tyre.. And the same with the seed.. Jesus didn’t say all of the seed dies.. but part of it must in order for new life to come forth..
“There are others.
But even if there were only one, it shows the bible is flawed. If we cant trust the bible on seed biology, then why should we trust them on the soul?”
http://www.cupofwrath.com/bible-questions/john-12.24.php
“Also, god has never spoken to me directly. The bible is very indirect, since it supposedly went to the writers, then past through many copiests and translators, etc. Everything you know of god comes from some other dude.”
That’s just the way it is with the written word, humans, multiple languages and time. Yes, it presents a challenge.. some choose to give God a chance and take up those challenges.. with objectivity…. and some don’t.
LikeLike
“why aren’t you judging Santa like you do God?….For all your claims that God doesn’t exist, you sure do spend a lot of time judging Him.”
Well, let’s take a look at the “Big Picture,” Kathy:
1. All rational adults accept that Santa Claus is fictional.
2. Santa never professed any desire to be a god.
3. Santa never killed anyone.
4. Santa never sentenced those on his “Naughty” list to burn in an eternal lake of fire.
5. Santa can say, “Ho, Ho, Ho’, better than Yahweh.
We don’t judge god, because we don’t acknowledge that one exists – we judge the image of the god that the Bible writers invented, and ask how anyone in their rational minds could possibly worship such an evil entity. I guess the assumption of rational minds is where we’ve gone wrong, but Christians like you are certainly helping us see that that assumption was a mistake. Thanks?
LikeLike
Here’s another “Big Picture” for you, Kathy, but I wouldn’t expect you to have the intellect to understand it:
LikeLike
“for the zillionth time, how did they know what Yeshua said, when none of the Gospel writers who wrote about what he allegedly said, ever met him?”
You’ve been asked for actual evidence that proves this claim and all you do is hand wave at your beloved critics. Wheres the actual evidence poor boy.
LikeLike
“Here’s another “Big Picture” for you, Kathy, but I wouldn’t expect you to have the intellect to understand it:”
Nah he didn’t?
Nah he wouldn’t be so foolish?
Nah he couldn’t
well yes it appears he did.:)
Kathy my apologies. I don’t usually go into all out mockery but i cannot help it with this barf by Arch
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Krauss’s everything out of nothing thesis as rebuttal – ROFL
This is The New atheists version of the emperor with the New clothes that PROVES BEYOND ANY SHADOW of a doubt that Arch has no sense and will go with anything Atheistic if it sounds good.
Let me give you a quick synopsis (I’ve watched that video and own the book) . Using some Quantum Mechanics based theory which has only been verified to work WITHIN time and space Krauss argues that all of existence and reality came about out of nothing – ZIp Nada – CREATING TIME AND SPACE.
You got that theology of the white fairy of nothing creating everything? Nada zip creates everything including time and space even though there is NOT EVEN A DROP OR SLIVER of evidence that QM can even work outside of time and space.
There’s your man of science Ark for you. straining at there being a God that creates everything but willing to swallow whole with no evidence that absolutely nothing creates everything.
And since We know Arch’s next barf will be to say that us Christians just don’t get it because we are stupid….well…..umm
Good night even Coyne didn’t like the book and agreed with the review by Albert.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/david-albert-pans-lawrence-krausss-new-book/
When you have Coyne having issues with a book thats pro atheism you KNOW something is wrong.
LikeLike
RE: “You’ve been asked for actual evidence that proves this claim and all you do is hand wave at your beloved critics. Wheres the actual evidence(?)”
It’s all over the place, and you are as capable of finding it as I, but we both know that in your role as Mister Twister, you will find something to criticize about any source I provide, so here’s a taste from birds of your own feather (sorry for the obvious insult, birds, but you KNOW I mean it figuratively –). As for “hand waving,” don’t forget my extended digit —
From The New American Bible notes:
MARK (pp 1115-1117)
“This shortest of all New Testament gospels is likely the first to have been written….”
“Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading, ‘According to Mark’ in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark….”
“The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources — miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion — so to speak, of the crucified Messiah for Mark’s own day.
“Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70, in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence 7, 3-4.11)….Modern research often proposes as the author, an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.” (emphasis, mine – for Kathy)
“The Gospel of Mark ends in the most ancient manuscripts, with an abrupt scene at Jesus’ tomb, which the women find empty (16, 1-8)….Other hands have attached additional endings after 16, 8; see the note on 16, 20. — The footnote to 16, 1-8 explains that “Mark’s composition of the gospel ends at v. 8 with the women telling no one, because they were afraid.” Of the additional verses (16, 9-20), it goes on to say: “Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark.”
MATTHEW (pp 1057, 1061)
“The position of the Gospel according to Matthew as the first of the four gospels in the New Testament reflects…the view that it was the first to have been written, a view that goes back to the late second century A.D…..Although the majority of scholars now reject the opinion about the time it was written….”
“The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see 10, 3) is untenable because the gospel was based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association, rather than rely on his own memories. (emphasis, mine – for Kathy)
“The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the gospel according to Mark, but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called ‘Q’ (probably from the first letter of the German word, ‘Quelle,’ meaning ‘source’), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the other two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the ‘Two-Source Theory’ given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.”
Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70, Matthew was composed certainly after that date…,and probably at least a decade later, since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by 22, 7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.”
“As for the place where the gospel was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. That large and important city had a mixed population of Greek-speaking Gentiles and Jews. The tensions between the jewish and Gentile Christians there in the time of Paul (see Gal 2, 1-14) in respect to Christian obligation to observe Mosaic law are partially similar to tensions that can be seen between the two groups in Matthew’s gospel.”
LUKE (p 1142)
“Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch….The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (1,2).” (emphasis, mine – for Kathy)
“Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel (1, 3) were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus (‘Q’), known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers.”
“Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark, and because details in Luke’s gospel imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition.”
“Luke’s consistent substitution of Greek names for the Aramaic or hebrew names occurring in his sources (e.g., 23,33//Mk 15, 22; 18,41 // Mk 10,51), his omission from the gospel of specifically Jewish Christian concerns found in his sources (e.g., Mk7, 1-23), his interest in Gentile Christians (2, 30-32; 3, 6.38; 4, 16-30; 13, 28-30; 14, 15-24; 17, 11-19; 24, 47-48), and his incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian, writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians.”
JOHN (pp 1187-1189)
“The Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels…It does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels…It was probably written in the 90’s of the first century.”
“The author’s purpose is clearly expressed in what must have been the original ending of the gospel at the end of chapter 20: ‘Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may [come to] believe that jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.’
“Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. Chapter 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (1, 1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself, there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (14, 31; 18, 1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing, in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.
“Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of it’s literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (ch 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (chs 5 and 6); and the sayings of jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament.</em"
"Although tradition identifies this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.” (emphasis, mine – for Kathy)
“The final editing of the gospel and arrangement in its present form probably dates from between A.D. 90 and 100. traditionally, Ephesus has been favored as the place of composition, though many support a location in Syria, perhaps the city of Antioch, while some have suggested other places, including Alexandria.”
So as for your persistent question, Kathy – “Why do you think there are four gospels?” – obviously, for no valid reason, as clearly none of them ever met your hero and thus their testimony is based entirely on hearsay and consequently as much supposition as any I might have.
As for Mister Twister, spinning is one of your favorite pastimes, so whirl little Dervish, whirl –!
LikeLike
Arch said:
“1Well, let’s take a look at the “Big Picture,” Kathy:
1. All rational adults accept that Santa Claus is fictional.
2. Santa never professed any desire to be a god.
3. Santa never killed anyone.
4. Santa never sentenced those on his “Naughty” list to burn in an eternal lake of fire.
5. Santa can say, “Ho, Ho, Ho’, better than Yahweh.
But God did none of this EITHER according to you/ atheists.. so why so much focus on Him? Why so much resentment and anger and bitter judging? No, sorry, it’s more than obvious.
“We don’t judge god, because we don’t acknowledge that one exists – we judge the image of the god that the Bible writers invented, and ask how anyone in their rational minds could possibly worship such an evil entity. ”
What do you care who others worship? Why so much thought and focus on what others do?
And again, you call God “evil”.. while enjoying your life, freedom, prosperity, loved ones.. none of it possible unless God allowed you to have it.
LikeLike
William,
you: “I think tyre is a good example, but we disagree there somehow, so how about Jesus saying that a seed must die before it will grow? We can measure that. we can verify that – and it’s false.”
me: Jesus didn’t say ALL of the seed must die. And Ezekiel didn’t say that ALL of Tyre was going to be under water. Part of the seed DOES die.. and part of Tyre DID end up under water and will never be rebuilt. If the prophecy said “all” of Tyre would be under water and never rebuilt then you’d have a valid argument.. there are portions all throughout the 3 chapter prophecy where it’s clear that it is NOT referring to ALL of Tyre.. And the same with the seed.. Jesus didn’t say all of the seed dies.. but part of it must in order for new life to come forth.. ”
And I want to add.. we say that Jesus died on the cross.. did ALL of Jesus die? Nope.. his Spirit never died.. same with His seed analogy. Jesus’ claim is 100% correct.. but you just as Nate does, insist on imposing your OWN meaning onto the words of others.
LikeLike
“As for “hand waving,” don’t forget my extended digit –”
I wouldn’t take that away from You arch. Its the only thing you have that actually stands up under scrutiny. I still await your EVIDENCE. All you did was do what you always do – point to a source talking about conclusions not the primary evidence for the conclusions. I’m beginning to realize you don’t know the difference
its quite clear you don’t have any grasp of the evidence. In fact your claims of textual criticism being fact as if its a science gives away the depth of your ignorance. Finally at least get your basic facts straight the NAB is not my guys of a feather. I am Protestant not catholic.
LikeLike
Nate,
you: And if you think Buddhism needs credentials, then you don’t understand Buddhism. It needs no more “credentials” than geometry does.”
me:
1) Did you really not understand what I meant?
2) Why would I care about which religion you *liked* the most?
“3) Aren’t we debating what the TRUTH is?
I don’t understand how you could have mistaken my question.
And why would Buddhism be the “best” is it isn’t even based on truth?? Makes no sense.
And if Buddhism makes ANY claims, or TEACHINGS.. like we are reincarnated.. then they SHOULD have something to back up their claims.. any rational person would require this. This is just another question that I’m more confused about after you’ve answered it.. because the answers don’t make sense.”
I’m still wondering what your answers are to these questions..
AND especially, an answer to my original question.. which religion/ faith has more credentials than Christianity? If you don’t have an answer, then how about an unbiased, objective “truth seeking” acknowledgement of Christianity’s superior credentials?
Sorry about my excessive exclamation marks yesterday.. I get over emotional and frustrated when I feel that I’m not getting 100% honesty or at least honest attempts at objectivity from those I’m debating with.. especially when that’s the very premise they are claiming re: blog header.
So, to summarize,
I’m hoping that you can give some clarity to my points above..
and also, to my point that if Christianity is based on “phone truth” aka “mistakes” and people just adding in all kinds of imaginary things to these mistruths re: all the Books/ hundreds of pages, thousands of words, of the NT.. which is A LOT of adding and imagination btw… how do you reconcile that with these people actually giving their very lives based on this? Are you claiming that they just weren’t very smart to not realize that they might be mistaken about all their countless assumptions and “mindreading”?
I see no rational argument that supports this belief.
LikeLike