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 
“I’ve never seen a Christian source question that.”
Question what? the cylinder. No but what you quoted wasn’t from the cylinder. pretty much what I didn’t ask for – a quote with no primary evidence to back it up.
” Some have argued that Nabonidus’ wife was Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, which would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. But there is no historical evidence to back up this claim,”
Theres no evidence to say that it wasn’t the case either. Belshazzars parentage is as far as I have ever read an open question on his mother’s side
” and it has only been suggested in an effort to explain the way Daniel 5 refers to them.”
NO wrong again. it has been suggested because the word there can mean son or grandson or even great grandson.
So heres what we have. We have Daniel saying that Belshazzar is the son or grandson of Nebuchadnezzar and we presently have no concrete information about who his mother is
Yet we have you and other skeptics claiming the Bible is in error when your evidence of the error is nil given that the word can mean son of , grandson of or great grandson and you don’t know who his mother was.
Will you come back and again say I have no evidence? Probably because you don’t seem to understand that in order for you to prove an error you have to prove that there is an error not claim I have to prove there isn’t one.
See? Kathy doesn’t have to study all the issues to know when atheist are not being objective. Sometimes it shows up in one single issue.
“Furthermore, another book from the 2nd century BCE (the same time period Daniel was most likely written in) shows this same misconception about the Babylonian kings”
No it doesn’t because again you have presented no proof about Belshazzar’s mother and Baruch is not necessarily an independent testimony but is likely partially based on Daniel or a common source.
LikeLike
@Ark, “Once again, you omit such relevant details as the Egyptian captivity, the magical nonsense and of course, the Canaanite conquest.
Moses is a fictional character. This is established fact.
Why are you not dealing with this?”
The conclusion is somewhat startling to Bible readers who know the Canaanites portrayed in the Bible as immoral idolaters: most of the Israelites were in fact formerly Canaanites. The story of Abraham’s journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin. The consolidation of the Israelites into a nation was not the result of wanderings in the desert and divine revelation, but came from the need to defend themselves against the Philistines, who settled in the Canaanite coastal plain more or less at the same time the Israelites were establishing themselves in the hills.
Thus the founders of Israel were not Abraham and Moses; but Saul and David. It was apparently Saul who consolidated the hill farmers under his rule and created fighting units capable of confronting the Philistines. It was David who defeated the Philistines and united the hill farmers with the people of the Canaanite plains, thus establishing the Kingdom of Israel and its capital city.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html
LikeLike
Mr. Twister strikes again! It wasn’t that “John records an earlier encounter,” it’s that John records an entirely different first encounter, contradicting Matthew, and there’s nothing but your word to say differently, and we both know what I consider THAT to be worth.
LikeLike
The word used in Daniel 5 is ab, which literally means “father.” There are times when it’s used as something like “forefather” but it’s typically done where that meaning is obvious — like referring to an ancestor that’s known to be several generations removed.
In Daniel 5, we have something very different. Seven different times, Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar are referred to as father and son — if that’s what the author literally thought, he couldn’t have expressed it any clearer. And we see where another author from about the same time period thought the same thing.
Furthermore, to believe that God actually inspired this writing, we have to believe the following: God inspired Daniel to call Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar father and son 7 different times, while never referring to Belshazzar’s actual father, Nabonidus. God would know that future generations would have several different contemporary sources showing them that Nebuchadnezzar was definitely not the father of Belshazzar and was not related to Nabonidus. If there was a connection via Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, God did not inspire Daniel to mention it, nor did he make sure any other historian recorded it. Add to this the other problems in Daniel, like Darius the Mede, the book’s focus on Antiochus Epiphanes, and the fact that there’s no reference to the character of Daniel until sometime in the mid-second century BCE, and one is left to wonder why God decided to stack the deck so heavily against Daniel’s legitimacy.
LikeLike
“Mr. Twister strikes again! It wasn’t that “John records an earlier encounter,” it’s that John records an entirely different first encounter, contradicting Matthew,”
hehehe you are begging bread and I think even you know it. There is nothing in Mathew about it being a first encounter. You done gone ahead and perpetuated a whammy and it done did blew up on you is all
LikeLike
@Nate – he’s using a Creationist website to “try” proving his point – gosh, I can’t imagine THEY’d be biased! He’s saying you can judge 3,000-year old words by modern standards, but if I may translate idiot-speak, he’s saying that 3,000-year old shepherds and herdsmen wouldn’t know which animals chew the cud, and which ones didn’t. The writers, on the other hand, were priests, and WOULDN’T have any real reason to know that much about agriculture – IF, of course, they didn’t have any divine inspiration – otherwise, their accuracy should have been spot on, regardless of their personal knowledge and/or experiences. Yet it wasn’t – hmmm —
LikeLike
@arch — “God is not the author of confusion”!
LikeLike
@Nate — ” “God is not the author of confusion”!”
No, Mike is 🙂 The greatest compliment we could ALL give him. 🙂
LikeLike
This could be a new name we could all call him.
Confusion says ………………………………….
I’m liking it 🙂
LikeLike
“The word used in Daniel 5 is ab, which literally means “father.” There are times when it’s used as something like “forefather” but it’s typically done where that meaning is obvious”
really Nate. If no one knew the story of Israel would they know this verse was referring to forefather
Joshua 24:3 (KJV)
3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.
I kinda doubt Joshua was talking to Isaac or Jacob
Judges 18:29 (KJV)
29 And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.
sounds like Dan gave birth tous but in the days of judges Dan had been dead for lets just say a looooooong time
“1 Kings 15:11 (KJV)
11 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.’
Seems straightfooward enough except David was Asa’s great great grandfather
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_of_Judah
MOre?
2 Kings 20:5 (KJV)
5 Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.
David was his great great great how many greats I didn’t count father. I could probably og on for pages but it would be merciless to your point but used these also because they illustrate a point that answers this claim
“Furthermore, to believe that God actually inspired this writing, we have to believe the following: God inspired Daniel to call Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar father and son 7 different times, while never referring to Belshazzar’s actual father, Nabonidus”
As with the cases above a prominent figure in the history of Israel is referred to as father (David -even when great great grandfather) Nabonidus was not the crucial player in the captivity. He would later on become a question mark “who?”
So is perfectly within keeping of the convention to use Neb and it could be used 7o times it would make no matter because despite your denial and proven by the texts above it was perfectly legit
“God would know that future generations would have several different contemporary sources showing them that Nebuchadnezzar was definitely not the father of Belshazzar and was not related to Nabonidus”
And God would know that those generations would have hundreds and thousands of hebrew experts telling them it can and does refer also to grandfather and great grand father
“Add to this the other problems in Daniel, like Darius the Mede, the book’s focus on Antiochus Epiphanes, and the fact that there’s no reference to the character of Daniel until sometime in the mid-second century BCE, and one is left to wonder why God decided to stack the deck so heavily against Daniel’s legitimacy.”
He didn’t. skeptics as demonstrated by you just don’t do very good research and one is left to wonder why you never do.
Your old ever used fall back position that it should be clearer ignores that there are prohibitions for laziness as well Nate. God is not required to overcome your inability to do the research you claimed to have done.
LikeLike
“@arch — “God is not the author of confusion”!”
Here here 🙂
which is why all the post on this blog were written by you and not him and why you are responsible for your own confusion. Finally some personal responsibility?
LikeLike
“their accuracy should have been spot on’
Their accuracy was spot on due to what chewing the cud means in Hebrew
oh thats right we can’t actually read the Herbew text or understand word usage. Thats twisting. Rofl
LikeLike
Mike, all the examples you listed from the OT fit with exactly what I said. In every one of those instances, other passages had made it clear that he wasn’t talking about someone’s actual father, but someone more distant. In those instances, the distinction is obvious. That’s simply not the case in Daniel 5.
LikeLike
“Mike, all the examples you listed from the OT fit with exactly what I said. In every one of those instances, other passages had made it clear that he wasn’t talking about someone’s actual father, but someone more distant.”
Circular nonsense. think Nate. We only know they are talking about somebody distance because we know they are not father and son as we call it today. In cases where we don’t why would I present them as evidence for great grandfather being used for you to deny they were?
Your point is dead as doors. The passages no matter how you beg and plea refers and uses the word father to denote grandfather and great great grandfather and thats obvious. Will you show the objectivity to admit it – meh probably not but at the rate you are failing to prove your contradictions and errors rather than plead for it I rather doubt you are going to convince Kathy. Shucks no matter how you dislike me we might even have you sitting down for christmas dinner with your family this year.
LikeLike
yes, because of the context. The word used there primarily means “father.” When context dictates, it can take on secondary meanings, but Daniel gives us no such context.
Look, here’s my beef with you — and I’m not saying this to be rude, I’m just trying to be as forthright as possible. It’s your use of phrases like this:
You pretend as though these are simple issues, or aren’t issues at all, but that’s simply not true. As I’ve shown with the Belshazzar example, the passage as it’s written is problematic. Perhaps you find the idea of Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar being related through Belshazzar’s mother to be a perfectly good explanation. I disagree with you, but that’s fine if you believe that. But to pretend that there’s not even the appearance of an issue seems disingenuous. Am I wrong in that? I don’t want to get sidelined discussing your commenting style, but if you feel I’m completely off in my assessment, please let me know.
LikeLike
Actually, KC, the area of Kansas, just as you approach Missouri, is the closest Kansas comes to having mountains, at least there are some hills and multi-layered rocks there. I lived on a ranch for a year, had a couple of horses, just north of Grain Valley.I enjoyed watching Nichols Plaza light up at Thanksgiving, and I took my son and his girlfriend on the horse-drawn carriages when they visited. Beautiful country, been across it all the way to Cape Giradeau.
LikeLike
@Ark:
Dever was born into a Christian household, his father a minister, and attended theological schools before beginning his career in archaeology – today, he is an atheist, as 30 years in the Levant, chasing down claims of the Bible, has convinced him that the beliefs with which he was raised simply aren’t true.
LikeLike
@Ark – Exodus tells us that over 600.000 men left Egypt with Moses, and factoring in the women and children, or in Hebrew terms, property, that runs to about 2.5 million people at a time when the entire population of Egypt was only 3.5 million – what economy could take that kind of hit without a comment somewhere on a hieroglyphic? Why, it would be like America, if all of the Mexicans went home!
LikeLike
“Yet people have died for Allah, for Krishna, for Zeus, etc. Would you maintain that their dying for those gods makes those religions true? All the Bible shows us is that people wrote down stories they had been told — as far as I know, no one questions whether or not these authors actually believed what they wrote. I think most would agree that they believed, but that doesn’t make them correct.”
Nate, I didn’t make the claim that the martyrs of Christianity prove it’s truth. Why did you make that assumption? I do claim it is very compelling evidence of it’s truth. And those other ppl dying for Allah etc.. were they martyred? Or did they kill themselves? It makes a huge difference. You’ve got to consider the circumstances of each. Their deaths contributed / contribute nothing towards the truth of their gods. Blowing yourself up is just stupid.
“Kathy, you’re once again claiming that atheists are not being objective when you haven’t studied these issues in detail yet. How do you know who’s being objective? How do you know whose position is false? Most everyone here has tried to be polite to you, because you usually seem to honestly want to discuss the issues. That’s all we want as well — even if we’re unable to agree. Why label one another as lacking objectivity?”
I apologize again.. I really didn’t mean to be offensive.. my accusations weren’t directed at Arch, I was referring to atheists/ liberals in general… based on my experience in debating with atheists/ liberals. I realize this isn’t true of all.. but it is true of most I believe.
But I don’t know how you can fault me for wanting to know the sources of the claims being made. Especially since they were being made in a “factual” way. I don’t think Arch was being dishonest, but I do believe the information he gave is incorrect. You are right, I don’t know anything about the “DH”. But based on my experience with liberal “truths” and also my knowledge of God and Christianity.. I’m am extremely confident that the information is incorrect.
And every time I make the lack of objectivity claim, it’s backed up with the evidence of the debate going on at that time. It’s there for the other person or anyone else to challenge. I only make the claim because it’s what I strongly believe at the time.. I’m ALWAYS willing to listen to the arguments for why I might be wrong.. because I can certainly be wrong.. but if I was, wouldn’t there be a defense to my accusation? Just like I defended your accusation that I lacked objectivity? And I didn’t mind you making the accusation because you were being sincere.. it is what you believed.
LikeLike
ooops!
LikeLike
@KC —
“The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Joshua demonstrate that the Israelites were rewarded when they obeyed God, but were punished when they strayed.”
Another way of saying controlled by Pavlovian conditioning.
LikeLike
@Kathy – RE: “No one died to testify to the truth of Star Trek.”
19 men died flying airplanes into select targets for the glory of Islam – does that make you a Muslim?
RE: “I appreciate you sharing this “information” but it holds absolutely no value without references to your sources.”
I told you what a busy day I was having, and that I would get back with you when it was over, with additional information, but some of the things you’ve been saying in your comments – “it’s always amusing to hear what atheists manage to come up with to try and explain away the Bible” – and – “There is NO OTHER rational explanation!” – lead me to believe you aren’t sufficiently open-minded enough to benefit from any effort I might make, and you’ve shown me no reason to do so. Good luck.
LikeLike
You’re wasting your time, Nate – Kathy and Mike’s idea of using Occam’s Razor, is to slice off everything that doesn’t fit between the covers of their Bible.
LikeLike
@Nate – RE: “The word used in Daniel 5 is ab” – AB-solutely, which is where we get “Abram” and “Abraham,” the “father of many nations.”
LikeLike
RE: “Nate, I didn’t make the claim that the martyrs of Christianity prove it’s truth. Why did you make that assumption?”
You certainly implied it.
LikeLike