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 
Ruth, you said:
“There is no valid point in your claim that Christianity is the most credentialed. You asked Nate which he thought was most credentialed. He’s answered that. He thinks that no religion is any more credentialed than another, including Christianity. Martyrs, scriptures, maps, [unnamed] outside sources…most other religions have these things, depending on what you mean by outside sources. Commentaries and books written about the scriptures?
Do you really want to stand on this hill? That Christianity is credentialed?!? I’m not sure, unless you mean the variety of authors in the NT, what you even mean by that.”
Ruth, here is the definition for “credentialed”
cre·den·tial (kr-dnshl)
n.
1. That which entitles one to confidence, credit, or authority.
2. credentials Evidence or testimonials concerning one’s right to credit, confidence, or authority: The new ambassador presented her credentials to the president.
It basically is the same as “evidence”.. I’ve used the 2 words interchangeably.
Simple evidence Ruth. I don’t know why that would be so hard to understand.
Your need to deny the very real evidence for Christianity is ALSO revealing.. you and Nate are revealing your lack of objectivity.
Trying to claim that all religions have the same amount of evidence for their truth or claimed truth is an incredibly ignorant claim. Do you really need me to explain this??
Again, as much as I’m sure you both and all atheists no doubt, CRINGE when I say this.. I’m going to state it yet again.. it’s a FACT… Christianity is the MOST credentialed of all the widely known religions/ cults in human history.. by far.
LikeLike
Kathy, in case it isn’t clear, we are atheists. That means we don’t think any religion has good credentials. I just don’t know how else to say it…
LikeLike
That judicial idea of yours is a good one Kathy – here’s what we’ll do, we’ll charge Pontius Pilate with murder, and try him in a court of law, according to the rules of evidence – that should make EVERYbody happy, right? It’ll be lots of fun!
Here we go:
Let’s imagine for a moment that we are sitting in the courtroom of a murder trial – Pontius Pilate (an actual real, verified, historical person) is on trial for the murder of Jesus, and using courtroom rules of evidence, it will be necessary to decide his guilt or innocence.
Let’s also imagine that the Prosecution has four witnesses, a Mark, a Matthew, a Luke and a John. Unfortunately (for them) all four witnesses died before the trial began, but earlier, in pre-trial Discovery, each gave sworn depositions, telling their story and swearing an oath that it was true, and courts can accept such depositions in place of actual testimony, but they are subject to more rigid scrutiny, since the defense doesn’t have the option of cross-examining the witnesses, due to their somewhat, shall we say, decomposed condition.
Just for the hell of it, I’ll play the attorney for the Defense.
Get ready, set, pretend!
BAILIFF: Comes before this court the case of the murder of one Jesus of Nazareth, by one Pontius Pilate!
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Objection, your Honor!
JUDGE: How can you have an objection before I even call the case to order?
ARCHAEOPTERYX: It’s an issue of accuracy, Your Honor – “Jesus” was not the alleged victim’s name.
JUDGE: Is that right, Mr. Prosecutor?
PROSECUTOR: Well actually, yes – his real name was Yeshua, but when the story was written in Greek, the Greek name for Yeshua was “Jesus,” and he’s been called that ever since. When the preacher is calling converts to the altar, it’s much more dramatic if he can scream, “Jeeeee- sus!”
JUDGE: Yes, well, we’re not interested in calling converts here, this is a court of law – henceforth, the victim’s name shall be known as Yeshua.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: “ALLEGED” victim, your Honor – it has yet to be proven that a murder has been committed.
JUDGE: I stand corrected, “Alleged” victim. Are you happy now Mr. Archaeopteryx?
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Ecstatic, Your Honor – I may have peed my pants.
JUDGE: So relieved to hear it, let us proceed: This court is now called to order, you may present your opening statements.
The attorneys both make their opening statements which, in the interest of brevity and because they are boring, I shall not present here.
JUDGE (to the Prosecution): You may call your first witness.
PROSECUTOR: Your honor, the Prosecution calls to the stand, the witness Mark – under special circumstances, Your Honor, of which the court and the Defense are aware, the witness, Mark, died nearly two thousand years ago, but the good news is (see how I worked that in there?), is that he left a deposition, which he swears is the Gospel truth, of what transpired in the case of Jes – er, ah, Yeshua. I will be reading the deposition of Mark, in his exact words.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Your Honor, I have a right to question the witness, which in this case is the Prosecutor —
PROSECUTOR: Objection, Your honor, the Defense agreed to accept the deposition of my witness —
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Yes, I did, Your Honor, under certain conditions, which include establishment of the actual identity of the witness, and a clear picture of exactly what the witness, indeed, witnessed.
JUDGE: Sustained. Proceed, Mr. Archaeopteryx.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Could I first ask, Mr. Prosecutor, if “Mark” is the witnesses’ real name?
PROSECUTOR (embarrassed): Well, we don’t actually know his name – whoever it was, he wrote his Gospel anonymously – it was decided by church officials, in the second century CE, that it may have been Mark.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: So when exactly did “Mark” write his Gospel?
PROSECUTOR (still embarrassed): Sometime after 72 CE.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: So, nearly 45 years after Yeshua allegedly died. What took him so long to report the crime?
PROSECUTOR: He couldn’t find a pencil?
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Your Honor, here we have a witness, who couldn’t possibly have witnessed the events that the prosecution claims that he witnessed – I would like to petition the court that this witness be excused.
JUDGE: So ordered, next witness.
PROSECUTOR: My next witness, Your Honor, is Matthew, which is the Greek name for Levi, the tax collector, well established in the New Testament as an apostle of Je– Yeshua.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Your Honor, I have read the Gospel of Matthew, it is an exact copy of the Gospel of “Mark,” even to the point of quoting “Mark,” word for word, with a few embellishments. If the author, “Matthew” were the real Levi, wouldn’t he have had his own story to tell, instead of simply copying “Mark”? Mr. Prosecutor, exactly when did the author, “Matthew” write his Gospel?
PROSECUTOR: Er, ah, about five years after Mark wrote his.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: So this “Matthew” not only wrote his deposition nearly fifty years after Yeshua allegedly died, but he didn’t witness anything, he merely copied Mark’s Gospel and added to it? Your Honor, I would like this witness excused, as well.
JUDGE: So ordered, next witness.
PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, this witness is Luke, a physician, who accompanied St. Paul on a number of his journeys, and recorded his mission.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Is the Gospel According to Luke written by the actual Luke?
PROSECUTOR: Well, we don’t really know for sure. The Gospel of Luke, like the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew, were written anonymously – as I mentioned, church officials later gave names to these people.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: I notice that the Gospels are very much alike – isn’t that why they’re called the “Synoptic Gospels”? Because they sound alike?
PROSECUTOR: Yeah, well, Matthew copied from Mark and Luke did as well.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: When did “Luke” actually write his Gospel?
PROSECUTOR: Originally, we thought it was ten or so years after Matthew – about 60 years after Yeshua died, but “Luke” also wrote “The Acts of the Apostles,” and for a long time, even though the Gospel of Luke copied Mark, much as Matthew did, in the Acts, he seemed to corroborate the later epistles of Paul, and lend authenticity to them.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Your Honor, we don’t even know the name of “Luke,” as whoever he was, he wrote his Gospel anonymously as well. Further, “Luke” wrote “The Acts of the Apostles,” which appeared to follow the mission of Paul, and corroborate everything Paul said, but recently (2000 – 2011), the Westar Institute initiated a seminar, that concluded that whoever “Luke” was, he wrote his “Acts” in the first century (after 100 CE),and in fact, used the letters of Paul to write his book, thereby, not corroborating anything that Paul wrote. If it please the court, Your Honor, I must ask that “Luke” – whomever he may have been – be dismissed as well.
JUDGE: So ordered, next witness.
PROSECUTOR: Your honor, our last witness is John, the brother of James, both of whom were the sons of Zebedee, the fisherman. James was there, during the life of Jesu- Yeshua, and can tell us exactly what happened – his story is by no means, “synoptic” – clearly, he didn’t copy anyone, Your Honor.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: So this “John” was a fisherman, the brother of James and the son of the fisherman, Zebedee. He must have been one of those about whom Yeshua said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
PROSECUTOR (uncomfortable): Well, no, not exactly. Actually, John said he met Jeshua while he was following John the Baptist, and saw Yeshua walking on the other bank of the Jordan River, and waded over to talk to him. Yeshua asked him to spend the night, and the next morning, he went back and recruited his brother, James, as well as Simon (Peter) and his brother, Andrew, who were also following John the B.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Wow! That story is so different from the others, it almost sounds sincere – did John really write it?
PROSECUTOR: Well, we don’t really know for sure – this author too, was anonymous- church officials, once again, decided what name to give him.
ARCHAEOPTERYX: So when did pseudo-John write it?
PROSECUTOR (winces): Sometime after 100 CE – copies don’t show up until after 150 – does that mean he’s off the witness list as well?
JUDGE: What do you think?
ARCHAEOPTERYX: Your Honor, in view of a lack of credible witnesses, the defense moves for immediate dismissal of all charges.
JUDGE: I tend to agree, case dismissed! This court is adjourned.
Pontius Pilate may or may not have been guilty of murder, but we will never know, because there were no witnesses to anything he may have done in relation to anyone mentioned in the Bible.
LikeLike
“Kathy, in case it isn’t clear, we are atheists. That means we don’t think any religion has good credentials. ”
Well now hold on there pardner. to be accurate you should add – “except the white fairy everything out of nothing scenario”
after all religion is also defined as
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Since the everything out of nothing has no empirical way of being verified it qualifies for ardor and faith (not that faith must be limited by that) so like it or not you’re not entirely accurate
LikeLike
“Let’s imagine for a moment that we are sitting in the courtroom of a murder trial – ”
thank the lord for the ability to scroll past nonsense. Arch doing Screenplay writing? Yuuuuck. Lol
LikeLike
“Well, let’s see.. what else has Jesus been wrong about?” – we really don’t know, Kathy, and we don’t know what he was right about either, because no one who ever wrote about him, ever met him.
LikeLike
Mike, I never said that I thought Krauss’s argument was correct. It’s simply an interesting hypothesis. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know our understand enough about the early universe to make any claims.
LikeLike
“What is your primary reason for turning your back on a non-existent being??” – what kind of question is that? Do you ever actually LISTEN to yourself Kathy?
LikeLike
“Kathy, I don’t even understand your most recent comment….” – I think I do, Nate. I’ve been reading between Kathy’s lines, and I get the impression that knowing you were once a Christian, she is applying one or more of those excuses as to why anyone would ever POSSIBLY walk away from it – “Just angry at god,” etc. I think little Kathy, who probably goes to school until noon, has in her naive way, decided that you are STILL a Christian, and if she can only turn you around and point you back to god, then you will close down this devil’s blog and we imps will have no where else to hang out. But when you mentioned blaspheming, you terrified her, because that’s a word Christians dare not even THINK, much less say! To we normal people, it’s just a meaningless word, but to one of them, it can be a death sentence, and I don’t mean Mike’s “little bit dead.”
LikeLike
“Mike, I never said that I thought Krauss’s argument was correct. It’s simply an interesting hypothesis. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know our understand enough about the early universe to make any claims.”
You posted in defense of it- end of story. Plus others of your atheist group and other atheist groups have pointed to it so the point stands. Meanwhile you are full of total nonsense. I’ve read the book and I’ve followed the thinking and read similar critiques even from scientists that agree with my stance on it. I am not pretending anything. You however are pretending up a storm.
Be honest for once in your life Nate. Muster a look in the mirror with some real truth with yourself as the point of analysis. If it were an idea from the Bible you would be calling it mythology and unworthy of serious discussion due to the metaphysical nature of it (You’d probably write a post mocking it)and we both know it whether you choose to lie about it or not.
So very obvious that the only reason this gets a pass for being an interesting hypothesis from you is because it is atheistic. Its also obvious you want a pass to duck on the issues surrounding it as if the issues surrounding it are so fantastic no one can debate it. its metaphysics – everyone knows it cant be tested and that there is no evidence whatsoever that quantum mechanics operates without already existing spacetime. So you are essentially embracing a supernatural claim as an interesting hypothesis and it get that label simply because its not theistic
Like I said before you are fooling no one.
LikeLike
“I get the impression that knowing you were once a Christian,”
Actually Arch if I read Kathy right, like me, she doesn’t completely buy (me not at all) that Nate or any of you were ever real Christians. so garbage in garbage out. Your whole thesis is down the drain.
LikeLike
“But if you don’t believe in God there’s no such thing as blasphemy, really.” – Ruth, that’s not something she can even imagine.
LikeLike
Great court scene, Arch ! 🙂
LikeLike
Kathy, he’s saying that NONE of them have ANY evidence to support them – what part of that are you not understanding, the part you don’t WANT to understand?
LikeLike
“what’s the hang up? and why are holding to this so strongly? is it to avoid answering other questions?” – no, William, she’s trying to herd him, like one would horses, in a certain direction, and he isn’t going – that’s frustrating for her!
LikeLike
“No list is necessary Arch.. just apply the correct CONTEXT.” – ah, but how do we know which context is correct? The one you agree with? You really don’t listen to yourself, do you?
LikeLike
I dig the courtroom drama, Arch. You and William take the cake for most entertaining comments of the day 🙂
LikeLike
I’m aware. I do remember being horrified at the thought of it. But I also think she’s reading far more into the comparison than was intended. When you’re so strongly devout the mere suggestion is cringe worthy. It’s not good to live under that kind of fear.
LikeLike
Thanks, KC – Mike didn’t seem to care for my screenplays, but I’ve written several, and they’ve sold, so what does that say about his taste?
LikeLike
Volumes , Arch…..Volumes 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, Nate – I wrote it for a Nigerian ingénue, on Matt’s blog, who, like Kathy – but not as caustic – came on the board, saying that Christianity was real. Ultimately, she left the board because her head was about to explode, but we still stay in touch by email.
LikeLike
“I’m aware. I do remember being horrified at the thought of it.” – all I’m saying, Ruth, is even though they wouldn’t do it for us, we should try to put ourselves in their place. Except Mike – nobody should sink that low.
LikeLike
“Thanks, KC – Mike didn’t seem to care for my screenplays, but I’ve written several, and they’ve sold, so what does that say about his taste?”
Oh I dunno…That Mike doesn’t Like Barney or Hanna Montana??? 🙂
LikeLike
Nate, you said:
“Kathy, in case it isn’t clear, we are atheists. That means we don’t think any religion has good credentials. I just don’t know how else to say it…”
Oh look.. you’re ADDING words again.. Nate, I’m not asking for “good” credentials.. just simply.. credentials. Anything factual that supports the claims as opposed to disproving the claims. For example, outside historical records that corroborate Biblical people, places and events. That’s evidence that supports the truth of the Bible. I’m just asking you to compare the evidence of those religions you know about and give an opinion.. how do the outside records support the claims of other religions? Sorry Nate but it’s just not plausible that you have no opinion on the quality of the evidence for Christianity and other religions.. all of which you obviously dismissed. What does that say about you if you haven’t considered these things in deciding to dismiss Christianity and the others?? Once again, you are asserting something that doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Arch, re: courtroom drama..
Pretty entertaining.. but my judicial system reference was in regards to the overall evidence for the truth of the Bible (which is overwhelming).. not Pilate’s guilt.. although I do realize you needed to take some creative license for your “script”.. but, your “point” fell flat Arch.. all four Gospels are excellent sources of evidence. All contribute valuable details about Jesus’ life and death. Just like you all mistakenly believe that slight differences are a “problem”.. which the very opposite is actually true,.. that 3 of the 4 Gospel writers didn’t identify themselves ALSO lends credibility. What writer wouldn’t take credit for his work?? That makes no sense. It’s clear that they didn’t want credit.. the focus was meant to be exclusively on what was written.. who the author was was not important.
And, also, I don’t get your point that you’ve made several times now about Jesus’ name.. I don’t understand why you think that’s such a big deal??
“the Westar Institute initiated a seminar, that concluded that whoever “Luke” was, he wrote his “Acts” in the first century (after 100 CE),and in fact, used the letters of Paul to write his book, thereby, not corroborating anything that Paul wrote.”
The Westar Institute huh? a “seminar” huh? they “concluded..” yeah, sure.. if the LIBERAL/ ATHEISTS say so! That part was particularly funny.. 🙂
Bottom line, it doesn’t matter when the Gospels were written, or by whom.. it matters what was written and if it has been disproven or corroborated. And guess what?? NONE of it has been disproven and much evidence has been discovered that SUPPORTS the truth of the Bible.
There could be very good reasons why they were written later.. and that the authors weren’t named.. what an objective person would ask is why those people who were in on this “hoax” didn’t just make up the authors, and edit the books to make it appear that they were written earlier.. and while they were at it, either fix the “contradictions” or just choose one Gospel for the cannon. That they didn’t do these things conflicts greatly with the atheist’s narrative.
Regardless, the later writings and lack of author identities in NO WAY disproves the truth of those Gospels. You all keep trying to imply otherwise but it means absolutely nothing.
The evidence we have for the people and events in the Bible is more than for many other people that far back in history.. Pontius Pilate, who you acknowledged is real.. all we have for this Roman OFFICIAL outside of ONE inscribed plaque.. are the writings of historians who ALSO mention Jesus. The Bible gives us a wealth of historical information, all of which atheists would LOVE to make disappear. While it was likely that after Jesus’ death and the persecution of His followers grew, ( not only by the Romans but by the Pharisees, both of whom had a hand in Jesus death).. any writings about Him were destroyed and any new writings were forbidden.. VERY PLAUSIBLE.. which would explain the later dates of the Gospels, and also why we don’t have more documentation of Jesus.
LikeLike