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 
Regarding the Titles of the Gospels:
LikeLike
“what? know arch is right?”
It could happen —
LikeLike
And for cryin’ out loud, quit apologizing to him! He sees that as a sign of weakness, and eats apologies for breakfast! – arch
I can ignore him and probably will. But he is welcome to view apologies as weakness if he pleases, but he’d be foolish to do so.
I should have only addressed the facts without resorting to childish behavior and insults – they really only get in the way of progress. I only dish them out when i believe the individual I address them to are not actually wanting a discussion or wanting to listen, but instead only want to dictate. That doesn’t make it right of me.
but you’re right overall. Mike continually dodges the discussion and skips out of answering real questions, and spends most of his time trying to snipe others. Giving any attention to that type only fuels their indecency and i shouldn’t be party to it.
LikeLike
“About the contradiction with John.. without researching it, I suspect it’s another example of .. omission not being proof of contradiction.. maybe John didn’t mention the fish because he wasn’t fishing himself?”
There is no contradiction at all Ruth. Matt 4:18-21 isn’t a story about how they met. Its about when Jesus called his disciples to the ministry. Arch thinks its about when they first met when the text says nothing of the sort. John records an earlier encounter. Like I said before – the disciples get up and leave everything in Matt 4 because they already know him
We know this conclusively because John tells us John (the baptist) is not in prison yet
John 1:35-40 (KJV)
35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
Matt 4 tells us John was then in Prison
Matthew 4:12 (KJV)
12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
two different encounters entirely….Easy and smooth as silk.
LikeLike
“As to the hares chewing cud, the biggest flaw in this criticism is imposing a modern technical definition of biology onto an ancient culture which had no such context. Sure, if we use modern definitions of what things mean and impose it onto an ancient context, we’ll end in all sorts of issues.”
Yes. Great point that I was going to address next, We are talking about imputing the term rumination and its meaning into a usage of a term “chewing the cud” over 2,000 years ago and expecting it to have the exact same meaning as it does today and thats NOT even vaguely logical
Decent article on it here
http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud
LikeLike
@Ron – you left out D, the Deuteronomist Source —
LikeLike
kathy,
Instead of trying to directly address everything you brought up, let me focus on this quote that you offered:
At the beginning of this comment, you expressed the importance of objectivity, and I couldn’t agree more with that. But then you closed with this quote, which is the opposite of objectivity. This quote is saying that even if we can’t make sense of a passage, the fact that it was included in the Bible means it’s true. If that’s honestly how you view it, then I’m afraid you’re wasting your time here. There are definitely atheists who are unconcerned with evidence and objectivity, but the vast majority of people who frequent this blog are very concerned with the evidence. So, I’m afraid that the approach your quote is advocating just won’t accomplish anything with the rest of us.
You might be surprised to know that there are some passages that people claim are contradictions that I don’t think are. When people talk about the differences in the gospels about who visited Jesus’ tomb, I don’t find those to be true contradictions. It may just be that different gospels focused on different people. I don’t have a problem with those kinds of issues, and I think you’ll find that I didn’t list any of them in my post. The problems that concern me have to do with actual contradictions — like what time of day Jesus was killed.
In your last comment, you said this:
I’m afraid this just isn’t the case. In a story, like Star Wars, I don’t get all upset if they mess up the story and create a contradiction. But with history, contradictions show that some of the information is wrong. A contradiction can not exist in real life — so when one is recorded it shows us that there’s a problem with the document. And that’s what we see over and over in the Bible.
Again, let me stress that you should consider doing a lot of research into these before you feel the need to respond. You won’t be able to accomplish that in a couple of hours of internet research. Really dig into the issues. And you may find that the research spawns other questions:
Many more may follow, and they take time to research and contemplate. I hope you’ll really consider this advice — I can even suggest a few books, both by skeptics and believers, if that helps.
LikeLike
@Portal – sometimes the most effective medicine has the worst taste. I was merely trying to point out the absurdity of the claim that, “invisible qualities are clearly seen”!
LikeLike
Chewing the cud is actually pretty easy — rabbits don’t do it. They do engage in coprophagia sometimes, but so do pigs, and the Bible says pigs don’t chew the cud.
But thanks for the opposing view and the link to the article.
LikeLike
@humblesmith —
Thanks for stopping by.
That’s not been my experience, but I’m hopeful that Kathy will do some hardcore research into these — regardless of which position she comes to.
LikeLike
@Kathy
My goodness, you are serious, aren’t you? Then let me answer seriously. Why , science, of course.
May I inquire what evidence you use to support your claim, btw?
LikeLike
“The Bible has many witnesses that span over thousands of years. That’s just one of several examples of what makes the Bible credentialed.”
Kathy, assuming he’s still alive, SOMEwhere, there’s a retired NBC executive that goes to bed every night, sadly shaking his head and saying to himself, “I can’t believe I canceled ‘Star Trek’!” Star Trek began nearly 50 years ago, had to work with ever-decreasing budgets, and finally, after three years on the air, the plug was pulled. Then a Star Trek Saturday morning cartoon series began, using the voices of the original actors. Then Paramount (who owned the franchise) launched a new series, “Star Trek, the Next Generation,” which spawned “Star Trek, Deep Space Nine,” and Star Trek, Voyager.” That was followed by a Star Trek movie, with all of the original Star Trek cast, then four more, then ST, the Next Generation movies, and now a whole new set of adventures, with actors portraying the original Star Trek characters, and NetFlicks is in talks with CBS about a new Star Trek TV series. It has become a concept that will not die.
And over the course of that 50 years, literally thousands of writers have written for one or more episodes of the many series and movies – but it’s STILL fiction.
LikeLike
Nate, when I read this : ” 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?”
.. I thought of a response I gave to you on the Tyre article that you never responded to.. I feel that it is a strong point that I made and would really like a response to it, especially since, basically, you had asked the same question again here..
You: ““If he doesn’t condone human sacrifice, why would we condone hiding information from people that would save them?”
Me: “What information has God hidden?? We have the Bible, and we have Jesus’ instructions for us to evangelize, spread the GOOD NEWS… God has gone and goes to great lengths to reveal to us His gift of salvation.. even asking those who obey and love Him the most to sacrifice their own lives. They will be rewarded beyond our imagination.. but this is the price that is paid so we CAN know and believe.. yet even that isn’t enough for many. And it’s at that point.. when God has sacrificed Himself and those who love Him that He has had enough. The blame at that point is all on those who reject Him.”
What God is allowing is for us to know Him and what He did for us. Again, lives were given so we could know these things. You/ atheists don’t acknowledge this.. instead you focus on these FEW (by comparison) seeming “contradictions”.. and insist they disprove the entire validity of the message that ppl again, gave their lives to spread so we WOULD know the truth.
It’s pretty evident that God want’s us to make an effort. If not, we could easily assume that He would just reveal Himself and we wouldn’t have any questions at all. He wants us to seek Him, not be forced to follow Him out of fear. He wants us to GENUINELY love Him.. just as He genuinely loves us. This is what the entire faith is based on.. God creating us to love Him as He loves us. And this makes sense. It actually gives an explanation for our existence. There is NO OTHER rational explanation!
You are focused on the “contradictions/ mistakes” but, maybe they aren’t actually mistakes or contradictions. Maybe you are just interpreting them that way.. you must apply context because as I explained earlier, it’s real life.. it’s not fiction.. all kinds of circumstances affect the stories we read that are NOT included in the writings.. that’s real life. And if you don’t make an effort to find out the possible explanations that real life encompasses, you are most certainly going to see “mistakes/ contradictions”.
But, bottom line, the number of seeming mistakes are miniscule by comparison.. normally, when it’s not about God.. when bias is not present.. those mistakes would get the benefit of the doubt since they are so few by comparison. Again, in the Tyre prophecy, the scraping of the city and it being under water is an incredible prophecy fulfillment.. yet it gets ignored and instead atheists keep their focus on what is basically a technicality. I just don’t see this as being objective.
Later today I’ll address the creation “contradictions”.
LikeLike
I totally get what Kathy is asking. When I was a believer, I thought that I had incredibly good evidence for my position — I mean, I thought it was so obvious to anyone who just took the time to consider it. It’s just that I was ignorant of a number of things. There’s nothing really wrong with ignorance, as long as we correct it when we realize it. I don’t fault Kathy for her question at all — in fact, it’s the right one to be asking.
Kathy, there are many lines of evidence. Some of it is covered by the issues in this blog post, but there’s much more as well. Ark is right that science (biology, astronomy, physics, geology, etc) all independently point to an explanation of our universe that does not fit well with Genesis. There’s also evidence within textual criticism. I strongly suggest that you look at two books: Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman. He’s agnostic, but he’s also a well-respected biblical scholar, and this book is a great introduction to the facts of textual criticism. I’d also recommend How We Got the Bible by Neil Lightfoot, who is a Christian. Those two books should give you a well-rounded knowledge of the issues concerning the canon and various biblical texts. There are also historical reasons to believe Christianity is false. And when thought about logically, a number of the doctrines don’t seem to make much sense.
But again, it takes time to gather and absorb all this information. It’s well worth the effort, though.
LikeLike
“The blame at that point is all on those who reject Him” – kathy
If the person believed it and rejected it, then okay – that may have merit. So i wanted to make sure I’m understanding your point perfectly.
Is it your position that everyone really believes it, but some simply reject it?
What about those people who look, and live ethically, but simply dont believe the bible’s claims?
What about the people who believe it, not because of their devout search for truth, but because they were raised that way – are they better than the good man who actually searches, but comes away unconvinced?
LikeLike
“Chewing the cud is actually pretty easy — rabbits don’t do it. ”
You are right Nate. its pretty easy. I’d add elementary for anyone that applies some scholarship
A) The english “chewing the cud” is not in the Hebrew manuscript (as the link so aptly shows)
B) anyone with even basic understanding of ancient literature knows you can’t apply a modern day meaning to a phrase used 2,500 years ago in different culture and language . you can sell that to unsophisticated readers but it won’t fly among anyone who have the first clue
You are never up to looking at the original language or culture which is why your claiming Kathy is not objective is just hopelessly off and all of your contradictions flop so badly.
LikeLike
Apologies, Nate. After dealing with Mike and others of his ilk the lines between simply ‘bloody- minded’ and genuine inquiry – if this is, in fact what Kathy is after – often get lost in the white noise of apologetics.
Then may I recommend to Kathy, or you can, Nate,as you seem to have her ear, archaeologists, Israel Finkelstein, Ze’ev Herzog and Rabbi David Wolpe as a jump off point?
LikeLike
Sorry, I didn’t mean to overlook this. I was referring to the fact that many people today are convinced that this God doesn’t exist. That’s what he’s hidden.
Making an effort is fine, but you’re applying that to knowing whether or not he even exists, and that’s nonsensical. I don’t mean that disparagingly, because people make this remark all the time, but there are some real problems with it.
First, some Christians believe that if God let his existence be known to us it would remove the need for faith, and it would take away our free will. But the Bible shows that this isn’t the case. Think of all the people in the Bible who had firsthand encounters with either God or Christ — did they suddenly not need faith? What about Peter? What about all the examples of faith listed in Hebrews 11? Virtually all of them had intimate relationships with God or Christ, yet were still described as having faith. Furthermore, many of them disobeyed from time to time, illustrating their free will. So if God allowed people back then to have knowledge of his existence, why can’t we have it today?
Secondly, if God really wants a relationship with us, why is he hidden? I know for a fact that Jennifer Lawrence exists, yet I don’t have a relationship with her. And looking at it from the other direction, when children believe in Santa Claus, they don’t have a relationship with him. Simply believing it doesn’t make it so. In real life, our relationships are with people we know. So if God wants a relationship with us, why doesn’t he have one?
LikeLike
I just read your latest reply and want to address this real quick.. you said:
“At the beginning of this comment, you expressed the importance of objectivity, and I couldn’t agree more with that. But then you closed with this quote, which is the opposite of objectivity. This quote is saying that even if we can’t make sense of a passage, the fact that it was included in the Bible means it’s true.”
My comment you refer to incl. quote: ” here’s a site that gives a possible explanation.. I especially like the statement at the end.. ” Ultimately, no matter how Paul did his math, the Holy Spirit approved it (2 Tim. 3:16), and makes the point that God is a God of promise (Gal. 3:18, 29). ”
Nate, you’ve misunderstood my words.. I would never put forth an opinion as a reason we “must” believe in the Bible. Where have I ever indicated I would do such a thing??
My preceding words set up the context for the reason for including the quote.. First, I give a link that gives a “POSSIBLE” explanation.. “possible” is being EXTREMELY objective.. and as a SIDE note..I stated that I LIKED the statement at the end.. this was NOT a presentation of evidence in any way.. I merely stated that I liked it.. that I agree with it. Not that you SHOULD also.
LikeLike
Those are good suggestions, Ark. I completely neglected to mention the evidence from archaeology!
LikeLike
My apologies, Kathy. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 🙂
LikeLike
Kathy, I have spent far more than half a day in front of this computer screen, and there are things I absolutely MUST get done – your comment deserves far more than the hasty response that I would have time to give it now, so I’m going to “flag” the email notification and mark it “unread,” so it doesn’t disappear into a black hole, and when I’ve caught up with everything, I’ll come back and respond – best I can do for now.
I will respond to this one point quickly though – “WHY would the authors, writers, compilers “editors”? include or leave these inconsistencies in??”
In my opinion, confusion and fear. Genesis 2, for example, was written around 950 BCE by the Yahwist Group, a group of priests in the Southern Kingdom of Judea. Nearly 500 years later, a group of priests, living in captivity in Babylon – who later became known to biblical scholars as the Priestly Source – sat about wondering why their god had allowed them to be taken captive and Jerusalem destroyed. Naturally, they decided it was all Man’s fault, so they rewrote Genesis, creating a more ethereal god – the one in the Yawist’s version actually came down to earth for walk-about, “in the cool of the day,” and made clothes for Adam and Eve on the Celestial Singer – in other words, he was too human. So the Priestly Source intended to replace the more Human god with one who was more “godly,” who stayed in his heaven and sent underlings to do his bidding, which we now know as Gen 1.
But the five books that would finally comprise the Torah, or the Pentateuch (and be falsely ascribed to Moses) weren’t redacted (edited) into a final edition until c.400 BCE, and at that time, the Redactor didn’t know to throw out one of the Genesises, or even which one to throw out (and certainly afraid of throwing out the wrong one), so he kept both, and thus we have two conflicting stories. MANY of the contradictions can be attributed to the fact that four sources who wrote the “Books of Moses,” were widely separated by distance and time, and the Redactor, in 400 BCE, had the daunting task of piecing many of those together like a patchwork quilt, but still, try as he did, there are many inconsistencies.
LikeLike
“Chewing the cud is actually pretty easy — rabbits don’t do it. They do engage in coprophagia sometimes, but so do pigs, and the Bible says pigs don’t chew the cud.”
Yeah, nate, i agree. I don’t think it could be clearer. I’ve heard many people try to excuse this by saying the ancient hebrew didn’t have a word for cud, therefore, “cud” is an imperfect transliteration…
I’m fine with that. What doesn’t make sense to me is what was the hebrew word getting at then? The hare doesn’t chew anything like the cud. In what way would the hare resemble the other animals in the list? What was the bible trying to say that hares chew or hares do?
as you’ve pointed out, hares chew poop, but then pigs do too and they were said not to chew the cud (or whatever the word should have been). SO if it’s not “cud,” and not poop, what is it?
Some may say, “what difference does it make? just don’t eat hares…” but the passage is pointing out physical and identifiable traits that that make these beasts either clean or unclean… what is that identifier if “cud” is wrong?
Saying that “cud” is misleading doesn’t resolve the issue. The hare is said to do something like these other animals, the scholars say it’s “chew the cud” but if they’re wrong, what is it that hares do that is like the other animals?
I agree, to me, this is a clear foul up. Elementary. The bible says “x” but “y” is the case.
LikeLike
“What is the evidence they use to support their claim?”
I’ll summarize for you kathy since they won’t. Silence among the very few contemporary (or near contemporary) historians.
What they won’t mention is how often the silence conclusions haven’t panned out
The ammonites were suppose to be a mystical creation of the bIble but then ooops evidence was found.
the kingdom of David was supposed to be mythical but oops then they found evidence for that
Belshazzar that Nate mentions (and claims to know for fact was not related to Nebuchadnezzar) was for claimed for MANY years according to Skeptics a completely made up character but then ooops they found evidence of that and then
He was never a ruler of Babyon but oops that held up too
Just a long record of claims by skeptics of drawing conclusions based on what always was scant evidence either way given few contemporary historians and having to dig what ever did exist out of the ground.
LikeLike
Mike is right that archaeology and history have supported the Bible at times, even when people had assumed it was wrong. But it’s also true that history and archaeology sometimes contradict the Bible — not because of an argument from silence, but from actual evidence. Belshazzar being the son of Nabonidus instead of Nebuchadnezzar and the problems surrounding Darius the Mede are just two. As Ark said, there are archaeological sources available with this information, if you’re interested.
LikeLike