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 
Let me make it simple for you Kathy, since you are making it clearer with every comment, that that’s the only thing you can understand. Nate is a really nice and patient guy – you know, the kind of person you could grow up to be someday if you pulled your head out and got real – the kind to which Mike, on the other hand, could only aspire.
Nate’s trying to tell you nicely that no one religion is superior to another, because they are all BS, and frankly I have no idea how one would determine which BS is superior. Maybe you should cater a BS tasting.
You keep harping on and on about “compelling evidence” because “martyrs died,” but no one has ANY idea if ANY martyrs died, because we only heard they did from anonymous authors who never had the courage to even sign their names! And they certainly never lived in the times that the disciples, if they ever existed, lived, and so would never have had a clue as to how they died, unless they heard it from a friend, who heard it from his wife, who heard it from her cousin Louie.
“You don’t seem to think that the individual specific circumstances are pertinent.. that’s incredibly irrational reasoning.” – you don’t know what their circumstances were and neither does anyone else, because it’s all based on anonymous authors who were never there – they’re just freakin’ making it up, and if you ever opened a book besides the Bible, you’d know that!
If there were any on this board who weren’t atheists before you got here, they will be before you leave. I guess if you can’t be a good example, you’ll just have to be a horrible warning.
LikeLike
“the wheat plant” – the stalk! The stalk dies back, leaving the seeds to come up again the next Fall. You really don’t know much of ANYthing outside of that book of yours, and not a whole lot about what’s in that! I surely do hope you don’t have children, I would feel SO sorry for them.
LikeLike
@arch
I usually compose my longer comments in a text editor and copy/paste them into the comment box. (Due to some strange glitch/short in my laptop palm rest that suddenly and unexpectedly closes the browser window when—and only when—I’m typing in the WP comments box.)
LikeLike
“I agree. But ALSO the reverse can be true.. when we say that NYC was attacked on 9/11.. does that mean “all” of the city? No. And there is no “clear” demonstration that only the WTC was attacked when we say NYC was attacked.. or when we said/ say that the United States was attacked.. no “clarification” is added that it meant only the WTC in NYC.”
attacked? sure.
Destroyed, though? If someone said NYC was destroyed, does that imply 3 building in NYC were destroyed?
I’m afraid I’m not the one seeking out a way prove my agenda. Look at the words for what they are. I dont have to add “ALL” to statements that use phrases like “destroyed”, “never rebuilt” and “die.”
since when does “die” mean “not die.” if something has life, is it dead? Again, it’s like saying that a man who’s leg is amputated is dead, because the flesh of his leg is. this is just absurd.
“The seed “dies” in order for new life to come forth. Again, Jesus didn’t specify that the entire
biological seed dies.. He doesn’t have to be this clear.. it’s HIS words and His meaning.. not what you want HIS words to mean. If none of the seed “died”.. then you would have an argument.”
in what way does the seed die? and yes, i know they’re jesus’ words, and he’s wrong. The seed doesnt die. and your last sentence in the quoted text… i’m at a loss… i cant really believe you;re making this argument. If someone says something has died, when do they eve have to explicitly state that “…and I mean the whole thing is dead…” it works in the exact opposite of how youre using it.
are we having a real conversation?
“Old Tyre” is underwater and will never be rebuilt”
oh, is it? because i’ve seen pictures of tyre… where is “old tyre” underwater? never mind, no point in rehashing tyre. look at a present map.
and you know something else, if you think mike is good company, then that shows what a poor state you’re in.
LikeLike
Redefining common words is the Christian apologist’s forte. “All” doesn’t really mean “all” and “every” doesn’t really mean “every”. Three is one and one is three. In a previous comment Kathy wrote:
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.”
Even though the “good” book clearly and unequivocally states that God is Jealous, angry, vengeful, remorseful, etc., Kathy would like to have us believe these words don’t really mean what they say or are somehow justified (despite the inherent absurdity of proposing an omniscient, omni-benevolent and perfect god riddled with severe anger management issues).
Likewise with the verses where Jesus reveals his scientific ignorance vis-a-vis seed germination. First we’re told (over and over) that a part of the seed dies upon germination, even though plant science informs us that’s not what happens. So now the goal posts get shifted to include the seed stalk.
Why? Because Jesus.
This, as Sam Harris once said, is how you play tennis without a net.
LikeLike
@Ron – RE: “I usually compose my longer comments in a text editor” – I did EXACTLY that! But then I pulled a Colombo, “one more thing,” and that’s when the first two paragraphs just completely disappeared, and the bottom half moved up to the top of the box!
Don’t for a second believe it’s your laptop, it’s a WP plot! Either that, or Big Picture Kathy sic’d her god on me – hey, it’s compelling evidence —
No links at all, and the only word I used that could be at ALL questionable was “BS” (the initials), and hell, even KATHY used THAT, yet I shot straight to moderation – I should probably look and see if it’s off yet, but I ain’t doin’ nuthin’ til I choke this coffee down!
LikeLike
Kathy the whole seed in the ground Error claim by these skeptics is just bone head stupid. I would not pay it any mind. Every passage in any language is subject to context and only nits try to take it out of context to get what they want,
Since the seed is recognized without miracles in the context to have the ability to propagate life then the sense in which it is dead is the same as humans in Christianity who are transformed after burial. Even if the sense is it appears dead and buried and the appears to spring back into life there is no error since the context admits that seeds have life in them to create more wheat
Heres a short rebuttal but it really doesn’t require anything long
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/seeddie.php
its just stupid Hyper literalism ignoring context . If the passage had even stated that a seed needed to be resurrected miraculous then their complaints would make sense. it doesn’t because it recognizes against their claims that seeds have live in them to create new plants
Just silly silly silly desperate stuff they are trying to float. When they go to stuff like that you realize how little they have that stands up to scrutiny
LikeLike
It’s not in moderation. I’m not sure why it showed that way at first…
Anyway, i went back and edited your comment down to what you intended, and then just deleted the one after it, since it no longer made much sense. Sorry it screwed up on you. 😦
LikeLike
“““To follow by faith alone, is to follow blindly.”
All hail the white fairy that creates everything from nothing according to our High Priest Krauss
LikeLike
Perhaps you should try to understand Krauss’s argument before you mock it.
LikeLike
RE: “Likewise with the verses where Jesus reveals his scientific ignorance vis-a-vis seed germination.” – it doesn’t appear that botany was his strong suit – he probably should have stayed in school. Don’t forget that he expected the fig tree to produce figs out of season.
LikeLike
“Since the seed is recognized without miracles in the context to have the ability to propagate life then the sense in which it is dead is the same as humans in Christianity who are transformed after burial. Even if the sense is it appears dead and buried and the appears to spring back into life there is no error since the context admits that seeds have life in them to create more wheat” – mike
Oh I see what you mean. It makes perfect sense now. It’s like saying the baby in the womb must die before it can be born and live… or like a the worm must die before before a butterfly can be born…
I mean, now that it’s clear “die” doesnt mean “die” because jesus was talking about redemption… why didnt you just say so from the start…
the seed doesnt really die, but jesus said it did, so he must have had a good reason.
I guess in that case, no one really says anything in error, why because it’s rooted in their own context.
case closed. kudos. Mike, was that invitation to lead mensa? dont be modest, they need you as their leader.
LikeLike
It’s WordPress out to get me, Nate – I’ve known it for years, ever since I chose the other format over it! Did you know that by 2020, it is predicted that there will bee more computerized devices out there than humans on the planet? If SkyNet is coming, can the Terminator be far behind?
LikeLike
“Perhaps you should try to understand Krauss’s argument before you mock it”
I Understand it completely. Read and own the book as well and I have linked to a review (one of many) that have much to say similar as I do. Understanding it is exactly why I mock it. Not surprised to see you stand up in defense of a meta physical claim though. Right after claiming Christianity is suspect because it has meta physical claims.
LikeLike
I have also read it and own it. I won’t pretend to understand it all — while physics fascinates me, I don’t pretend to be a physicist. Krauss may very well be wrong, and likely is. But where you continue to make a mistake is to equate theories like his with the supernatural. And if that’s what you come away with, then you likely misunderstand his point more than I.
The way I see it, the biggest problem with your assertion is that we don’t even know what “nothing” looks like. Just as “empty space” isn’t really empty, we don’t know that the default state is “nothingness” in the way that we normally think about it.
Feel free to say whatever you want about this comment. The best any of us can do on this issue is speculate, so I’m not going to bother arguing any of this with you.
LikeLike
“case closed. kudos. Mike, was that invitation to lead mensa? dont be modest, they need you as their leader.”
if only you had a vote I’d be set.
and yeah Poor Will – by any definition of death at the time a seed would be considered mostly dead.
LikeLike
“by any definition of death at the time a seed would be considered mostly dead.” – You mean like your Jebus, when they took him down – mostly dead? Since he was about to be “planted,” maybe that’s what he was trying to tell us, “Hey Guys, I’m only mostly dead!”
You know, I always wondered, and since you’re the self-styled expert on everything, maybe you can enlighten me on your way out – how did they get him down? I mean, did they pull the nails through his hands and feet? I don’t recall that they had any claw hammers in those days, or crow bars —
And why would he have to drag that heavy cross through town? Wouldn’t it make more sense just LEAVE one there? It’s not like they weren’t going to USE it again, and we both know what deaf ears any complaints would fall on about being crucified on a “used” cross —
Share with us your wonderful wisdom, O Wizard, before you board your balloon, off to bring sunshine and light to yet another gathering of lost souls.
LikeLike
Like Kathy, Mike receives his science information from an apologetics blog—one where we read this little gem:
Here the author reveals his scientific ignorance on the rate of body decay following death. Apparently he’s not aware that brain cells start dying within minutes, and that skin cells follow within 24 hours. Bacteria begin eating away the pancreas and intestines within two to three days and the body cavity soon fills with gases. Of course, all of this assumes that death occurs under ideal conditions. A body that’s been pierced through the side and left hanging in the sun with open flesh wounds for several hours would have become a virtual feeding ground for invasive organisms even prior to death.
And the outer shell of a seed is dead already, so saying it “perished” is grasping at straws.
He follows with:
No, it’s not something else. The seed proper contains a living embryonic plant along with a (limited) food supply inside a disposable wrapper. It doesn’t die when it germinates—it grows.
LikeLike
@arch
Ignorance in botany and horticulture weren’t Jesus’ only scientific shortcomings. He didn’t seem to know squat about cosmology either.
LikeLike
Dr: Your husband is dead.
wife: oh no! what will i do? can someone help me arrange the funeral.
Dr: what?
wife: the funeral… can someone help me?
Dr: why do you need a funeral?
wife: you said my husband was dead.
Dr: yes.
Wife: …so… i… i think i’ll need some guidance on what to do next?
Dr. What to do next? why, just take him home once he’s ready to leave.
wife: what?
Dr: he’ll be fine in another day or two and you can take him home.
wife: but i thought you said he was dead?
Dr: i did.
Wife:……..
Dr: oh, my god, you thought he was all dead?
wife: huh?
Dr: oh please, poor madam, forgive the chuckle, but I never said he was “all” dead. Lay people and their assumptions…
wife: so he’s not dead?
Dr: heh, he is dead, just not all dead…. didnt i say that?
wife: so he’s some dead?
Dr: of course, why must i state the obvious? When I say he’s dead, it doesnt mean “all” dead, unless i specifically insert the “all” qualifier. Silly woman.
LikeLike
Yo Will! Thanks for the assist bro. You reminded me of a fact and made my point
Perfect example. In ancient days you were considered dead when you were lifeless. People got buried who were not modern clinically dead all the time. Goes to show that using a 20th century definition of what people would refer to as dead just doesn’t work.
Thanks man.
LikeLike
Fireman: your home has been destroyed.
man: oh no! how did this happen.
Fireman: there was a fire.
man: my house was destroyed by a fire? how did that happen?
Fireman: yes, i’m sorry to have to relay this news. apparently, the iron was left plugged in.
man: oh man! everything i owned was in that house – now it’s all lost.
fireman: why is that?
man: well, my house burnt down… i assumed everything inside was destroyed too..
fireman: uh, who told you stuff was destroyed?
man: I dont understand…
fireman: your house was destroyed by fire, but all your stuff was in the unharmed sections of the house.
man: unharmed… i though you said my house was destroyed?
fireman: It was. I’m sorry for your loss.
man: .. but the unharmed stuff is in my unharmed rooms?
fireman: are you in shock? your house was destroyed… oh, i see, you’re confused.
man: I think i am…
fireman: …you assume because I said “you house was destroyed” that that means “all” of your house was destroyed.
man: yes. yes, I did think that’s what you were getting at.
fireman: well please pay attention, while I go over it very slowly for you. the police sketch artist isn’t here, so we wont be providing any illustrations to help you understand, but two walls in your house caught fire, destroyed, and the fire was extinguished before it spread. Your house is destroyed – I never said – all destroyed.
man: oh…
fireman: you’ll never be able to rebuild.
man: why?
fireman: because that material was consumed in fire… and when you hire a contractor to come of for a repair, he’ll be unable to use the existing material… and will have to buy new.
man: is that bad?
fireman: well, I was just hoping that you’d be able to rebuild, is all. i hate this for you – now you’ll have to build a new house, hopefully it’ll still be yours once completed.
LikeLike
“Yo Will! Thanks for the assist bro. You reminded me of a fact and made my point
Perfect example. In ancient days you were considered dead when you were lifeless. People got buried who were not modern clinically dead all the time. Goes to show that using a 20th century definition of what people would refer to as dead just doesn’t work.
Thanks man.” – mike
hey, you’re welcome. jesus was just an ignorant man of time after all. People in those days didnt really know when a man was dead or not, and jesus didnt really know that when a seed dies, it wont germinate.
it’s a score… but i dont think it’s one for your corner.
“hey, I’m not dead, i just passed out…”
“no! you;re dead. we saw you die, we’re burying you now.”
LikeLike
Ah, so now Mike is insinuating that Jesus wasn’t clinically dead: he just appeared lifeless (i,e, he’d only passed out after a really rough day of beatings, crucifiction, and body piercing).
So what Paul really meant in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 was:
“…Christ [appears to have] died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was [apparently] raised on the third day…”
Perfect. Mike has just cut down a central pillar of Christendom.
LikeLike
@william
LOL—thanks for the chuckles. You pretty much nailed the absurdity of M & K’s word acrobatics.
LikeLike