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
“Mike, yes there is a point when it’s time to move on” – but wait, aren’t you going to leave us with your irrefutable scientific proof that your god created the universe from outside space and time?? SAY it isn’t SO!
That’s what’s so funny about limpwicks like you – your Bible pictures a god, sitting on a throne above the dome that surrounds the earth, dividing the planetary waters from the vast ocean of H2O that is space, then we went into space, and ultimately discovered that the entire universe began with a singularity that simultaneously created space and time, so you had to move the old boy somewhere else, and you’ve picked “beyond space and time,” knowing that that can never be DISproven. Got news for you, Krusty, it can’t be proven either, but if you’ve got it, this would be the best time to trot it out – balls in your court, Harpo —
LikeLike
The “Good News” about you, Twister – and yes, there IS one thing – we atheists can point our children to you as an example of a christian, and say, “You don’t want to grow up to be like THAT do you?” I guess we should thank you for providing us with a new, even more frightening image of the Boogy Man!
LikeLike
” Got news for you, Krusty, it can’t be proven either, but if you’ve got it, this would be the best time to trot it out – balls in your court”
But…but….but.. we were waiting for you to show us the white fairy of nothing creating everything not for you to confess that you have no evidence as you just did. What a let down.
What good does it do after all this time, after all this foam, all this spittle, the desperate begging and pleading of superiority to confess on bended knees with tears welling up in your eyes that your position has nothing over what you think theism has? That it can’t be “proven either”?
Alas oh cruel world. the atheists confesses theism is equal (if not more) to atheism. Who shall save us now?
LikeLike
With Arch’s confession of having no evidence I leave you with these words for your Sunday meditation (and longer if Kathy is truly finished with you)
“oommmmm……ooommmmmm. We love you white fairy of everything from nothing.May your prophet Krauss bring us much dopamine to dull our brains that we may genuflect more deeply into the zen pretzel you deserve, Yeah for thou art worthy”
Enjoyeth thy Sunday
LikeLike
“P.S. Congratulations on your plan to give me no attention so I will leave.” – Ah, but you don’t get it Clarabelle (but we’re used to that) – I knew that if I indicated an interest in seeing Nate’s comments pushed up to 1500, you’d leave out of spite, but I also knew that your ego is so grandiose, that if I goaded you a little, you’d come back and help me close that gap! We’re sitting on 1503 – you’ve served the only purpose I can find for you, you may go now —
See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya!
LikeLike
“created space and time, so you had to move the old boy somewhere else, and you’ve picked “beyond space and time,”
LOL… I missed this before. What a bonafide nit. At no time in the Bible was God ever in space and time or a physical being. Fead old timer if the glasses still work
John 4:23-24 (KJV)
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
The beautiful thing about it is you can’t even intelligently rebut “spirit” since you believe in a white fairy of nothing creating everything. Spirit beats nothing everyday with a stick. lol
LikeLike
” I knew that if I indicated an interest in seeing Nate’s comments pushed up to 1500″
Oh hollywood! hollywood! LOL. Nate has 1500 comments. Give him a blue ribbon. 🙂
there are pages no one reads anymore out there with 7,000. Blog comments don’t give you any benefit in search engines. Shucks you can open your site to spam and get thousands without trying
Plus everyone knows (though your comrades won’t admit) that you are just lying through your teeth. you wanted me gone like yesterday but umm thanks
for the admission that it was me and Kathy that livened this place up 🙂 🙂
Checks in the mail?
LikeLike
“magic” is the ONLY explanation we have.~Kathy
Magic? Isn’t that the theist’s proposition? That a disembodied consciousness called God just magically poofed everything into existence from nothing by making a wish.
LikeLike
You’ve served your purpose, such as it it – shoo, off you go now —
LikeLike
“Magic? Isn’t that the theist’s proposition? That a disembodied consciousness called God just magically poofed everything into existence from nothing by making a wish.”
Poor Ron. Always behind the curve. Arch’s already informed us that that is the atheist proposition only without the wish. Same everything out of nothing.
Game over. You lose.
LikeLike
And he is parked off on the sidelines enjoying a beer and grinning from ear to ear…I hope!
LikeLike
Maybe…but the quality will skyrocket,and the air will be a lot sweeter without you xian fundamentalist aholes fugging up the air. Something to look forward to
LikeLike
Arch said:
““Mike, yes there is a point when it’s time to move on” – but wait, aren’t you going to leave us with your irrefutable scientific proof that your god created the universe from outside space and time?? SAY it isn’t SO!
That’s what’s so funny about limpwicks like you – your Bible pictures a god, sitting on a throne above the dome that surrounds the earth, dividing the planetary waters from the vast ocean of H2O that is space, then we went into space, and ultimately discovered that the entire universe began with a singularity that simultaneously created space and time, so you had to move the old boy somewhere else, and you’ve picked “beyond space and time,” knowing that that can never be DISproven. Got news for you, Krusty, it can’t be proven either, but if you’ve got it, this would be the best time to trot it out – balls in your court, Harpo –”
What the freak are you talking about?? You don’t even realize how much hypocrisy you are spewing. You no more have a scientific answer than we do. Yet, we STILL have an answer! You all have NOTHING. But somehow you all are the ones who hold the “truth”.. lol.. what “truth” would that be Arch?? You are ridiculous just like Krauss and Dawkins and every other arrogant atheist who is blinded by incredible ignorance .. the kind you’ve just perfectly displayed.
50/50 Arch… at BEST!.. it’s actually worse than that because at least we have an idea.. a Supreme Being who did not give His creation the ability to comprehend our origins. We’re not the ones who are plagued with ignorance.
Would you go out in your car with those kinds of odds? 50/50 chance of not arriving at your destination alive? Again, if you don’t agree with the 50/50 odds, just explain how atheists have better odds of being right.. I’ll wait.. 🙂 As I have to do with every challenge I give you.. maybe I’ll get an answer THIS time?? Or.. will this be yet another time when I’ll be told I’m not worth the time or some other pathetic excuse.. not worth the time while you continue to take the time to type out your insults & name calling instead.. you liberals.. so entertaining..
LikeLike
Well, I think we have a bingo! “I’ll pray for you” and “God loves you anyway” seem to be the only two (conspicuously) unfilled squares.
LikeLike
If those were examples of Christians, I’m SO glad I’m not.
LikeLike
You will know them by their fruits..and nuts. 🙂
LikeLike
I got really, really tired of all the back and forth so I unsubscribed from email notifications. Tonight I thought I’d see what has been going on.
Same old, same old.
However there was a sentence in Kathy’s 7/4 @ 1:21 comment that I thought pretty well sums up this entire discussion: “It’s all speculation.”
C’ya!
LikeLike
Yes Arch.. it’s so un Christian of us to point out your hypocrisy, pride, ignorance and especially your dishonesty. It’s funny when atheists start telling Christians how to be Christians.. you all would prefer to be the only ones who can criticize and judge.
LikeLike
“What the freak are you talking about?? You don’t even realize how much hypocrisy you are spewing. You no more have a scientific answer than we do. ”
Arch’s not the only one. They have all deluded themselves that everything out of nothing and/or an infinitely old universe where nothing has an ultimate cause isn’t ultimately an appeal to the supernatural
” It’s funny when atheists start telling Christians how to be Christians..’
kind of like when the insane try to tell you who is logical. I always ignore it. Doesn’t raise a blip.
LikeLike
Kathy,
I’ll check this weekend to see if you are still here. If you don’t mind I’d like to contact you though your twitter account. There is a resource that i’d like to share from the guy I mentioned before and another site as well. Anyway really busy for the next two weeks plus as I said when they start puling out the white fairy everything out of nothing desperate begging theres really nothing more to do but laugh and after you do that a few times it gets boring.
I’d suggest you move on. I know its kind of like a car wreck that can have you looking on too long but there are a lot better blogs on the internet. Anyway take care and nice meeting you online 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
“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.” – kathy
Kathy, didnt all of jesus’ body die? the parts of the body that we can observe and measure through biology?
When jesus died on the cross, we can be sure that “died” didnt just refer to the flesh around the nail penetrations or the flesh where he had been beaten… or that only his arm or leg died, but that his entire body died, correct?
Certain terms imply the whole – unless they clearly demonstrate that they are referring to only part.
For instance, If I said that i was underwater for a long time – it’s implied that I was holding my breathe and submereged for an extended period. If I told you that I was underwater for a long time, but then you learn that only my feet ever got wet, you’d feel like I was misleading you due to my wording – technically itcould be argued to still be true, but we all understand the common usage or words and implications that they carry, so if all I meant was that my feet were wet, then i would need to explain further to clarify that point and avoid confusion.
The same with Tyre and with the seed. If you give the name of something and say that it will die or that it will be destroyed, what in world would make you think that only a part was implied?
I think you have to take the real conclusion of tyre and the real biology of the seed to make your arguments that only part was meant to have been destroyed (never mind the “never rebuilt” part) or that “part” of the seed will die, while other parts of the seed must live….
When demolition contractors are hired to demolish a building, are they considered done once they demolish a wall of the building, or once they demolish the entire building? See what I mean? I think what i am describing is very obvious and easy to understand.
I think if you step back a moment, you’ll see the ridiculousness of these assertions.
If you reply to this, and still want to argue the point, then at least tell me in what way part of a seed dies before it grows and also how having life is compatible with dying? Seeds dont have souls, so I doubt this is what was meant.
LikeLike
Personally, Kathy, I find you to be a mindless twit. You are entirely closed-minded – you have no idea who wrote the Bible, where it was written, when it was written, who and what kind of people wrote it, or why, and yet you don’t care or feel you have any need to know those things. To me, that’s sad. Had you GONE to the effort to learn all of those things, in an honest search for the truth, yet still decided to remain a Christian, I would have had a GREAT deal more respect for you. As it is, you’ve memorized a few catch phrases from your indoctrination, “the Big Picture,” “martyrs prove the truth of the Bible,” etc., run around belching these platitudes without any real knowledge about either the Bible or religion in general, or for that matter, anything about the psychology behind the human need for religion, and sadly, feel you have no need to know any of those things. Further, you listen to no other point of view than your own – even a salesperson, and you ARE trying to sell your belief system, knows that the first tenet of successful sales, is listening. Yet you seem genuinely astonished that you were unable to convert anyone or even get anyone to see your side of the issue. That kind of blindness is mindboggling.
Spend a few years growing up and digging behind the scenes of the creation of the Bible, then come back – maybe then we’ll have something to talk about. Oh, and learn how to say, “I don’t know.”
And you might want to distance yourself from the baboon who appears to have attached himself to you, or at least put a diaper on him.
LikeLike
@ Arch,
“I don’t know” is not part of the fundamentalist vernacular. The 50/50 argument is called “hedging your bets”. If that’s the reason a person “believes” then, according to fundamentalism, that’s not real Christianity. One must understand and adhere to any number of other doctrines. If I say “I don’t know” it’s because I really don’t and am accused of being arrogant when, in reality, it is the height of arrogance to make claims with certainty when “I don’t know” is the real answer.
I accept and respect the fact that all kinds of people research these things and come away with deeper faith, tentative faith, or no faith at all. I didn’t make the claim that I knew with any certainty how certain things have happened. Fundamentalist make that claim. I don’t have to provide evidence for “I don’t know”. That’s why I was so puzzled when I was accused of hand waving when I said it. It’s not hand waving if one truly doesn’t have the answers. It’s only hand waving if you claim you do and can’t prove it.
LikeLike
what ruth said…
LikeLike
Frankly, Ron , I feel you acquitted yourself nicely. Bear in mind, that the one who accused you of “handwaving,” was the only one here who actually contributed nothing but caustic remarks – if one never offers evidence, one runs no risk of refutation.
At least we kept him here for days, wasting his time, when he could have been somewhere else, possibly causing real damage.
LikeLike