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 
“really Nate. If no one knew the story of Israel would they know this verse was referring to forefather” – the OT was written by Jews, for Jews – who wouldn’t know?
LikeLike
Great points Arch !
LikeLike
“yes, because of the context.”
No because we know who the people are especially in the Judges example. Now would I give you examples where knowledge of who the players are does not necessarily show the relationship? Of course not. then you would just say the relationship WAS father to direct son. So you are being nothing else but circular in your thinking. Truth is there may be many examples where we don’t know that grandfather is meant because we don’t know the player’s (and it doesn’t mean a hill of beans because it does nothing to change any doctrine or teaching) This is the same issue with genealogies and one of he reasons most people consider Ussher to have been wrong to just add up begats.
” The word used there primarily means “father.” When context dictates, it can take on secondary meanings, but Daniel gives us no such context.”
Nate I have given you examples and the scholarship on this is clear. Ab in everyone of those passages shows CLEARLY, UNDENIABLY, AND CERTAIN that it can and was used for denoting great and grand parents. You don’t like it so you are fudging just like you accuse Christians of doing. If this were an issue that showed a contradiction or you thought sealed one of your contradiction you would be arguing the opposite.
Meanwhile this is the first time in any of our discussions where you even cared about context in word usage (even though you are plainly wrong nevertheless). In our Tyre debate you completely begged off Nehemiah’s use of the word build referring to an inhabited Jerusalem with homes and an armoury and POINT BLANK claimed it didn’t matter.
“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:
Your point is dead as doors.
Will you show the objectivity to admit it
etc, etc”
Rationally that argument is dead Nate – not after recent posts and even this one. You have called me disingenuous in this very thread (and egads even in your last post), acrobat, Like clinton, obfuscator and yep even indicated just as I did that I would not admit things.
NO Nate what you really don’t like about me is I don’t sugar quote, I don’t care about being banned, I know the issues well enough to know you didn’t do all the homework you said you did and will point out the one thing maybe no one else will do with precision that could end up being very helpful to you to see – your own bias and yes even what some on your own side accuse me of – your own arrogance.
“You pretend as though these are simple issues, or aren’t issues at all, ”
Because they aren’t . I have it there in black and white How ab is used in relationship to grand parents and great parents. Like it or not the point IS dead. As long as that is an acceptable use of the word you can’t prove your error or contradiction and YOU not me or any apologist has the burden to prove your claims right we only have to show you can’t prove your alleged error. Whats funny about this is you actually use a character in Belshazzar which not so long ago skeptics like yourself using the same logic decided was a totally fictitious character So Daniel has already proven itself right against historians who swore it was lying on that issue
“As I’ve shown with the Belshazzar example, the passage as it’s written is problematic”
You’ve shown no such thing since Ab can and does mean grand parent in many texts
“But to pretend that there’s not even the appearance of an issue seems disingenuous”
A) the appearance of an issue to you living 2500+ years and in a different culture and speaking a different language is absolutely no evidence toward anything. I’ve tried to explain this to you before but you constantly deny how studying an ancient text is done.
B) theres not even a hint of an issue if the word can be translated grandfather since all that would be happening there is a reference to his relationship to a more well known and important figure in neb
C) you really are stepping up the duplicity to just take issue with me saying “will you admit it” and then turn right around and hint at my disingenuity simple because I don’t see it your way but the way ab is used in countless other Biblical texts.
I know you like to see yourself as unbiased and pure as the driven snow Nate (and thats part of your issue) but thats some serious hypocrisy right there and the second time you have questioned my genuineness in this thread after threatening to ban me on another thread for questioning any of your atheist readers.
time to take your blinders off and look in the mirror. Who knows a whole lot might be riding on it. Are you really as unbiased as you think you are? and were you really as unbiased as you thought you were when you “deconverted”?
LikeLike
Amazing. Sorry, Nate, best you just give Mike your lunch money and suck it up.
I guess there’s nothing for it. Screw Finkelstein, Devers, Silberman Herzog ,Wolpe, et al we must all accept the Word of Mike and reconvert.
Just one question….who’s going to tell the Muslims they’re wrong too? Mike?
LikeLike
“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.” – kathy
Then, Kathy, I think nate was saying it doesnt serve as evidence, much less as proof.
it only serves as evidence for their firm belief in something. And nate was giving evidence of other people’s firm belief in something else.
LikeLike
RE: “who’s going to tell the Muslims they’re wrong too?”
I think if he leaves for the Middle-East right now, he could get there just ion the nick of time! I think he should start with al Qaeda first.
LikeLike
Al Qaeda, Al Capone, Al Bundy. They each need Jesus, right?
LikeLike
Exactly, William – if people are made to believe that they have a soul, that it lives forever, and that if they give their short, human lives in servicer to their god, they’ll be transported to a paradise where they’ll live happily for eternity as a reward for their devotion, they are quite likely to make that trade, but it only proves the extent of their indoctrination, and the degree of their gullibility,nothing more.
LikeLike
“I guess there’s nothing for it. Screw Finkelstein, Devers, Silberman Herzog ,Wolpe, et al”
Ark bring the heat – Real primary evidence. You do nothing but appeal to authority which is fallacious.
And nix WIllaims beg that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That won’t work. the history of historians being wrong about what never existed and never happened has been shown to be wrong too many times – which is why you went into full spitting and sputtering mode when I brought up that fact.
LikeLike
Right, arch. There have been times where I thought I’d die for a hero sandwich, but then i realize that there wont be any sandwiches in heaven since there’s no hunger up there and all… so then i decide I’d rather live and eat a sandwich on my next lunch break.
But man, I believe that I really like sandwiches though.
LikeLike
“And nix WIllaims beg that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That won’t work. the history of historians being wrong about what never existed and never happened has been shown to be wrong too many times – which is why you went into full spitting and sputtering mode when I brought up that fact.”
Except it does work. If nothing is there, then that’s evidence that nothing is there. I did say it wasn’t the same as proof, though. But you can keep searching the dining room for your lost keys, I’m sure they’ll turn up eventually – because hey, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.
But I’m with you, why trust in something that’s been shown to be wrong again and again? it’s one of the reasons I left the bible.
LikeLike
“I think if he leaves for the Middle-East right now, he could get there just ion the nick of time! I think he should start with al Qaeda first.
Naaaah. Lawrence Krauss is closer so I’ll start with him – your high priest of everything out of absolutely nothing Pink Fairy. Anybody got his work address? You should – right in your shirt pocket close to your heart. Or did it fall out while you were genuflecting and chanting to the nothingness? 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Actually, I was hoping he’d start with the group who beheaded that guy on TV a few years ago —
LikeLike
“But you can keep searching the dining room for your lost keys, I’m sure they’ll turn up eventually – because hey, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. ”
thats right and If I can’t find my keys it doesn’t mean they never existed. By George I think the light bulb went off in his head and he got it. Call the press!! “Man Awakes out of Coma. News a t 6!”
LikeLike
@William – I like a Reuben, with a cold beer. Or a Philly CheeseSteak – whadaya tryin’ to do, ruin my diet? Now I’m hungry —
LikeLike
Yes, Excellent idea. I imagine they would welcome him with open arms….and c4, probably.
LikeLike
RFLMAO….ah…so experts have no validity and can thus be dismissed out of hand. Super. I understand perfectly.
And when it comes to ‘evidence’ of your man-god, to whom do you appeal?
His dad?
Good grief, you are such a plonker. Come back, Mister Ham…all is forgiven.
LikeLike
“thats right and If I can’t find my keys it doesn’t mean they never existed. By George I think the light bulb went off in his head and he got it. Call the press!! “Man Awakes out of Coma. News a t 6!”” _ Mike
Interesting point, since we’re not arguing about the existence of an Israeli nation, but where they’ve been…
LikeLike
Funny (sad, really) that YOU of all people, should mention “genuflecting…to the nothingness” —
LikeLike
RE: “appeal to authority which is fallacious" – the irony, Ark, is that if you had made an unsupported claim, he'd have been insisting on references, essentially demanding that you provide him with the very authority that he is calling fallacious – Mr. Twister —
LikeLike
Mike, I never set out to “prove” any of these contradictions. They simply are what they are. I see them as contradictions, because I can’t imagine a God who would purposefully create all these issues or one who would need apologists to help him make his case and fix his shortcomings. If you can imagine such a God and somehow square him with the adjectives omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving then help yourself. It just doesn’t work for me.
You know what else is funny? That until that discovery, Christians thought that he was Nebuchadnezzar’s son.
LikeLike
“RFLMAO….ah…so experts have no validity and can thus be dismissed out of hand. Super. I understand perfectly.”
ROFL poor kid doesn’t know that experts handle evidence and merely referring to their expertise without such IS fallacious
Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Read learn assimiliate…something…anything or as Kirk would say
“Must……hold ….back….ignorance…Scotty… we…need…more…power.
LikeLike
Mike’s only recognized authority is the bible. Sadly, I must admit, I was once this way. Skeptical of everything unless I read it between the covers of my Holy Bible.
Mike uses it as his measure. So if something doesn’t agree with the bible, then it is wrong, because the bible is always right. He’ll cite historians and archaeology as long as they agree with the bible, but that’s only because they’ve been validated by the bible, instead of the bible being validated by them.
It’s a tedious position, because when the bible contradicts itself, he must then say, “well, it’s wrong to view this passage literally, so it must be figurative so that it doesn’t conflict with this literal passage over here…” But then it doesn’t take long to realize the issue with “how do we know which one is literal and which is figurative, and then on and on.
you’re forced to argue with the goal of winning points, because you’re just not going to win on any logical merits.
LikeLike
I think it’s funny how mike routinely cites wikipedia, but then will criticize nate for doing so…
mathew 7:5, mike…. It’s in your book and it’s for you…
LikeLike
@Arch
“appeal to authority which is fallacious”
Maybe he thinks the word ‘fallacious’ has something to do with oral sex?
If he’s not blowing steam he blowing something.
LikeLike