Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[Stranger]

 

I'm not going round in circles any more with you today, Stranger.

 

Read the links.

 

Then get back to me with your new understanding.

 

 

 

 

See you tomorrow.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

Is this because god... cannot... lie?  Perhaps because he is not omnipotent?

 

It is because He is God. 

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

The Bible is the only Book written by God.

 

Demonstrably false. The bible was written by men. At best you can claim that God inspired men to write the bible.

 

If  God wrote the bible you have a huge issue with an omniscient being getting so much wrong in the bible. An omniscient being wouldn't even have simple errors like numbers reported incorrectly.

 

So yeah, we know an omniscient being did not write the bible.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

@Stranger     

"The Canaanites did not worship the God of the Bible.  If they did, they wouldn't have been destroyed by the God of the Bible."

 

The God of the bible evolved out of the Canaanite gods. So in a way they worshiped the precursor the God of the bible.

 

Genesis 1:26-28King James Version (KJV)

²⁶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

 

Who is "us" and "our"?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

It is because He is God. 

 

Stranger

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.  Genesis 2:16,17

 

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.  Genesis 5:5

 

god is a liar.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Who said God cannot control evil?

 

Stranger

If god is omnipotent, then why does evil exist?  He either cannot control it, or he chooses not to.  Which is it?

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

You describe me dishonestly.   I am not spouting what I have been taught.   I have studied the Scriptures and am telling you what I believe.    

 

God never lies, has never lied.   

 

There are many web cites with long list of contradictions of the Bible.   I am aware of them.  Apparent contradictions in the Bible do not concern me.

 

Stranger

 

I'm describing you about as "dishonestly" as you are describing us. You may not be meaning to convey that you think we are these ignorant rebels, who "understand not what we do," but that's wrong. We understand exactly what "we have done." You skirt around basic logic with even more basic illogical statements. "Logic" (which god created) is "of the world" (which god created) and has "been perverted" (god did this) because of "the fall" (god could fix it) which your god orchestrated as part of his almighty plan makes no heathen-ly sense.

 

What you are telling us is: "Good news, you're going to roast in hell for all eternity. Because you motherfucking deserve it, you disgusting and sinful piece of shit. Your ancestors fucked up, as part of his holiness' magnificent plan, because your god set them up to fail. Unless, of course, you believe that god, in his perfect and powerful will, conceived of this giant troll plan to slaughter himself manifested as his son to calm the bloodthirsty rage at your sinful existence enough to tolerate you again. You see, there must be blood, because he loves that shit. The pleasing smell of blood calms him enough to tolerate your sin and if it's not going to be an animal's blood, or your blood, it must be his own son's (as himself, of course).  This is, obviously, because only his own holy, righteous blood atones for your sin due to his unattainable, immovable standard. Believing in this holy zombie jew's bloody sacrifice as payment for your unwitting transgressions is the only way, because it's the only payment acceptable to our heavenly father. So, have faith. But only God can only give that faith to you. So you'll have to cross your fingers and hope that you are one of God's favorite people. Because he did plan in the beginning that you would roast in hell for not believing and you can't change his sovereign plan. Unless...of course you do believe. In which case it was his plan that you believe. He just wants a relationship with you, you see, but he prefers the relationship on his terms. He prefers only to test you, reveling in your tears, cries, and pleas with him to have mercy because it points to his majesty and his ultimate glory. And this life of trials isn't even the worst part. He'll fucking torture you forever if you don't believe. Because, remember, God loves you so much."

 

If you do not see a problem with any of this....at all, then we're done here and there is nothing to discuss. You look down on us as if you've been given some sort of secret, divine wisdom that we shall never have and you get high off of it. If we are destined for hell, as you have said, because we are all mired in sin, which you have said, without escaping it because of our ancestors, which you have said.....then it sounds like we are just categorically fucked, excuse my french. You can go to sleep tonight knowing that not only have you not converted any of us back, you have confirmed why we left in the first place and have sent us running even further "from the lord." I "have faith" that your god, if he exists, is evil incarnate.

[LogicalFallacy]

@Stranger - @ag_NO_stic makes a very good point. You are all reminding us why we left Christianity. You are in effect sending us further from God because of what you are writing. That is not good for you.

 

Do you think God would judge you for this? Would he say, you might have thought you were doing a good thing, but you caused these people to move further away from me. Therefore you will go to hell with them?

 

Do you think its just god would do this to you?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

@Stranger - @ag_NO_stic makes a very good point. You are all reminding us why we left Christianity. You are in effect sending us further from God because of what you are writing. That is not good for you.

 

Do you think God would judge you for this? Would he say, you might have thought you were doing a good thing, but you caused these people to move further away from me. Therefore you will go to hell with them?

 

Do you think its just god would do this to you?

 

 

²¹ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

²² Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

²³ And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.  Matthew 7

[★ Citsonga ★]

Stranger, since you replied to my list of Bible issues, I want to address each category in a separate post. Several years ago I wrote a lengthy letter that detailed a lot of problems with the Bible, and it also addressed problems with Christian attempts to rectify some of the Bible problems. I want to share sections from that letter with you here in response to your answers to my list. I'm sorry to overwhelm you, but I wanted to show that some of us really have studied the Bible and found many flaws with it. Also, even though there's a lot here, please be aware that what I post here does not cover all of the problems with the Bible. (Trivial note: The versions I'll be posting have a few very minor additions made since the original letter.)

 

For clarification, I did not set out to find problems in the Bible. When I first started seeing problems, I was actually studying the Bible as a Christian with the desire to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Like you, I believed wholeheartedly that the Bible was the perfect Word of God, and I was in utter shock as I began to realize that it isn't.

 

Anyway, the format I'm going to use is to include a quote of my original statement to you and your reply to that statement. After that I'll give a little comment and then post the excerpt from my letter that deals with that subject. (Note: The recipients of my letter come from a different theological perspective than you do. If I were writing the letter specifically to you, there are a few things that I probably would've worded a little differently. Regardless, most of the content is still relevant here.)

 

So, without further ado, here we go:

 

 

 

1. Contradictions: There are things said in the Bible that contradict things said elsewhere in the Bible.

 

1.)  There are apparent contradictions in the Bible.   I see them as a chance to learn some truth God is wanting to reveal.

 

There is something to learn from contradictions in the Bible, and that is the fact that the Bible is not inerrant. Here is what I've written on this subject:

 

CONTRADICTIONS

            The first thing in the Bible that started troubling me was seeing significant differences between different passages supposedly reporting the same events (often called "parallel passages"). A divinely inspired, perfect text could not contradict itself, could it? Surely the Bible would not have contradictions, would it? Let's take a look.

 

The Resurrection

            As we are well aware, the crux of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. It has been summed up like this: "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (I Corinthians 15:17-19). So, with Christianity hinging on this very issue, one would expect the Bible to be very consistent with the details surrounding Jesus' resurrection, right?

As far as the women visiting the tomb, Matthew mentions "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" (Matt 28:1), Mark mentions "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" (Mark 16:1), Luke mentions "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them" (Luke 24:10), and John mentions only "Mary Magdalene" (John 20:1), though her use of the term "we" when talking to the disciples (John 20:2) could imply that she was not alone. These are the women whom the following point pertains to.

John's account says, "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre" (John 20:1). Mark, on the other hand, says, "They came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun" (Mark 16:2); in other words, "When the sun had risen" (NASB), or, "Just after sunrise" (NIV). Matthew is in the middle, claiming that they came "as it began to dawn" (Matt 28:1). Some claim that what we're dealing with is events unfolding as the sun was rising. In other words, John was referring to it still being dark when the women set out to go to the tomb, Matthew was referring to the dawn breaking while they were on their way, and Mark was referring to the sun having risen by the time that they arrived at the tomb. On the surface, this may sound acceptable. However, John's account refers to it being "yet dark" when Mary "cometh... unto the sepulchre" (John 20:1), which is not just when she started her journey there.

Matthew says that the angel "rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" (Matt 28:2). With the angel sitting on the stone, we read, "And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you" (Matt 28:5-7). So, according to Matthew, the women encounter the angel outside the tomb, and the angel invites them to go in and see where Jesus had been laid.

Mark, however, tells a different version, saying, "And when they (the women) looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you" (Mark 16:4-7). The angel says much the same thing as in Matthew's account, but one striking difference is that there is no invitation into the tomb, because the women are already inside! The statement, "And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man" (Mark 16:5), implies that the angel was seen fairly immediately upon the entry of the women. So, according to Mark, the women did not encounter the angel until entering the tomb!

Luke, which has two angels in the story, says, "And they (the women) entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words" (Luke 24:3-8). So, Luke places the angels inside the tomb, just like Mark. However, while Mark has the angel appearing as they entered the tomb (Mark 16:5), Luke has the two angels holding off until "it came to pass, as" the women stood there "perplexed" (Luke 24:4). It could be contended that not much time had passed yet, and therefore there is no real timing contradiction between Mark and Luke, but even so, there is still a big timing problem between Luke and Matthew (just like between Mark and Matthew), because Matthew has the women encounter the angel before entering the tomb.

John, on the other hand, says that when Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, she "seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him" (John 20:1-2). So, Mary comes to the tomb and runs off without encountering any angels! John has Mary assuming that Jesus' body had been stolen, while Luke clearly states that "they (the women, including Mary) remembered his (Jesus') words" that on "the third day" he would "rise again" (Luke 24:8)! In John's account, it's not until after Peter and "that other disciple," whom many presume to be John, run to the tomb to check it out (John 20:3-10) that Mary Magdalene has her angelic encounter! It is at that point that she "stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain" (John 20:11-12).

As we just saw, John's account has Peter (and another disciple) running to the tomb to check it out before the angels make their appearance (John 20:3-12). Luke, on the other hand, has Peter's trip to the tomb taking place after the angels appear and the women report it to the disciples (Luke 24:4-12)!

So, in light of all of these varying details, exactly when did the angel(s) appear? The gospels present a jumbled mess on this matter.

Moving on from the women's angelic encounter, Matthew says, "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail, And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me" (Matt 28:8-10). So, according to Matthew, the women encounter Jesus before making it to the disciples.

John, on the other hand, has Mary Magdalene completing her trip from the tomb to the disciples, then Peter and another apostle's trip to the tomb, and then Mary's return to the tomb and subsequent encounter with the angels (John 20:1-13) all taking place before Jesus' first post-resurrection appearance (John 20:14-17)! Not only that, but according to John, this encounter took place right outside the tomb (John 20:11-14), while Matthew has Jesus' first appearance taking place somewhere between the tomb and the disciples, interrupting the women's run to the disciples (Matt 28:8-10)!

According to Luke, the risen Jesus' first appearances to disciples were to a couple on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32) and to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34), after which the first time Jesus reveals himself to the disciples collectively takes place in Jerusalem (Luke 24:33-49). John says that they were in a closed room (John 20:19-23), which could easily be meant as the same place. However, according to Matthew the place where Jesus first reveals himself as risen to the disciples is on a mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:16ff)!

In Luke's account, after Jesus reveals himself to the disciples in Jerusalem, he then takes them to Bethany, where he is "carried up into heaven" (Luke 24:50-51). However, John has an eight day delay before Jesus appears again to the disciples, this time with Thomas there (John 20:26-29), and a later appearance at the "sea of Tiberius" (John 21). These details in John, along with the Acts claim that the risen Jesus remained for forty days (Acts 1:3) before "a cloud received him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9), conflict with the flow of events in Luke's narrative regarding the ascension mentioned above.

In addition, Luke places the ascension in Bethany (Luke 24:50-51), while Acts claims that it took place at "the mount called Olivet" (Acts 1:12). The Mount of Olives is not in Bethany, and is actually closer to Jerusalem than Bethany. (Regarding this discrepancy, even Tyndale's "New Bible Dictionary" entry for "Olives, Mount Of" admits, "The visitor to Palestine learns the futility of pondering insolubles.")

If God really had raised Jesus back to life to save us from our sins, and if the Bible really was God's Word, then would the Bible's details surrounding Jesus' resurrection be such a terribly jumbled, contradictory mess?

 

The Nativity

          After Matthew tells of the birth of Christ (Matt 1:18-25), it includes a visit of "wise men" (Matt 2:1-12), also known as Magi (they were essentially astrologers). During the text about the Magi, Matthew has Joseph, Mary and Jesus living in a "house" (Matt 2:11), having lived in Bethlehem for a while (presumably around two years since Jesus' birth, based on Matt 2:16) as the Magi made their journey. After the Magi leave, an angel tells Joseph to take his family to Egypt to avoid Herod's murderous ploy (Matt 2:13-18). Then, after living in Egypt for a while, Herod dies and they leave Egypt and settle in Nazareth (Matt 2:19-23).

           Luke mentions Jesus' birth and a visit of some shepherds (Luke 2:1-20), and Jesus being taken to the Temple (Luke 2:21-38). In keeping with Old Testament Law, Jesus is circumcised "when eight days were accomplished" (Luke 2:21). The "days of her purification according to the law of Moses" (Luke 2:22) would be an additional 33 days (Leviticus 12:4), after which they make their "sacrifice" (Luke 2:24), where Simeon and Anna worship God (Luke 2:25-38). Then Luke says, "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom" (Luke 2:39-40).

           So, based on Luke's account, Jesus' family headed to Nazareth a mere 41 days after Jesus' birth, while Matthew implies a couple years in Bethlehem and then an unspecified amount of time in Egypt, all before going Nazareth! That is a very substantial difference.

           Many suggest that after the temple visit, the family went back to Bethlehem and then to Egypt before going to Nazareth, thus attempting to insert Matthew's account between Luke 2:28 and 39. However, Luke 2:39 clearly says that Jesus' family returned to Nazareth"when they had performed all things according to the law," not sometime later, so the proposed resolution really doesn't work.

           Another interesting thing is that Matthew's account does not mention Nazareth before Jesus' birth. It only mentions Bethlehem (Matt 2:1), giving no suggestion whatsoever that the previous events (Matt 1:18-25) happened anywhere else. Thus, an unbiased reader of Matthew (that is, one who had not been influenced by Luke's account) would have the impression that they were already living in Bethlehem and that Jesus was probably born in the "house" that Matthew mentions (Matt 2:11). Luke's account, however, places Mary and Joseph initially in Nazareth (Luke 1:26-27), only to travel to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4) because of orders to participate in a census (Luke 2:1-3).

In an effort to downplay the apparent difference here about Mary and Joseph's initial residence, it is often argued that the claim of a contradiction is merely based on Matthew's silence about them being in Nazareth prior to Jesus' birth. However, if you look at the flow of events in Matthew, you see that there is more to contend with than simply the author starting with Bethlehem and having the family in a house. There is also the return from Egypt, where the author indicates that the reason the family settled in Nazareth was because Joseph learned that Herod's son Archelaus was reigning in Judea (Matt 2:22-23), which is the region Bethlehem is in. In other words, Nazareth was a Plan B in Matthew's account, which would not be the case if they were actually residents of Nazareth who only went to Bethlehem for a census (as Luke claims), would it? The fact that in Matthew their Plan A was to return to the region where Bethlehem was, coupled with the previous mention of them being in a house there and no prior mention of Nazareth, certainly makes it sound like Matthew's account was written from the perspective that they were Bethlehem residents (as opposed to Luke's version where they were Nazareth residents only visiting Bethlehem for a census), does it not?

            Also, there is an overarching issue with the two different accounts of Jesus' birth. You see, other than the names Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, and the birth taking place in Bethlehem, the accounts of the Nativity presented in Matthew and Luke bear virtually no resemblance to each other. These are two completely different Nativity stories.

 

The Centurion

            In Matthew, a centurion himself comes to Jesus for help (Matt 8:5), and Jesus responds directly to the centurion by saying, "I will come and heal him" (Matt 8:7). Immediately the centurion himself responds to Jesus, telling him that he is "not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof," insisting that if Jesus would just "speak the word," then his "servant shall be healed" (Matt 8:8). Then Jesus marvels at the centurion's faith (Matt 8:10), and afterwards says directly to the centurion, "Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee" (Matt 8:13). As such, the conversation clearly took place entirely between Jesus and the centurion, with the exception of Jesus briefly commenting to his followers (Matt 8:10-12).

Luke, however, presents a very different version of the story. Though much of the conversation is the same, Luke indicates that Jesus did not speak with the centurion. This account has the centurion sending some "elders of the Jews" to Jesus, "beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant" (Luke 7:3). Luke says that Jesus actually leaves with these Jews to go to the centurion, but before Jesus reaches the house, the centurion sends some "friends" to tell Jesus that he's "not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof" (Luke 7:6). The friends indicate that the centurion believes that if Jesus will simply "say in a word," then his "servant shall be healed" (Luke 7:7). Then Jesus marvels that the centurion's faith (Luke 7:9), and the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well (Luke 7:10). In Luke's version, the centurion never once speaks with the Jesus, and even gives a reason for not going to Jesus himself (Luke 7:6-7)!

Many claim that Matthew simply left out the intermediate people to save space, since the intermediaries were speaking for the centurion, so that more text could be devoted to Jesus commending the centurion (a Gentile) and rebuking the Jews. This claim assumes that Jesus is speaking to the centurion through the intermediaries by telling them what to tell the centurion. If Matthew had merely said that the centurion made the request of Jesus and Jesus responded, then that could be a believable reconciliation. However, Matthew specifically states that the centurion "came unto him" (Matthew 8:5)! In addition, Matthew also has Jesus telling the centurion to "Go thy way" (Matt 8:13), which doesn't make any sense as something Jesus would tell the centurion's friends to tell the centurion himself if he himself had not come. Clearly, this claim simply does not work.

            So we're left with Matthew saying that the centurion went to Jesus and held a direct conversation with him, and Luke saying that the centurion did not go to Jesus and even giving an excuse for not coming to him. (As a side note, this particular discrepancy was the first one that I noticed and admitted to myself was really a contradiction. This is what started my questioning of the Bible's authority.)

 

Judas' Death

             Matthew says that Judas returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders (Matthew 27:3), cast them down in the temple and then "went and hanged himself" (Matt 27:5). "The chief priests took the silver pieces" and "bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in" (Matt 27:6-7), which is why "that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day" (Matt 27:8).

             The account in Acts is pretty brief, so I'll quote the whole thing: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood" (Acts 1:18-19).

             Notice that Matthew claims that Judas "hanged himself" (Matt 27:5), while Acts says that he fell "headlong" and "burst" open and "all his bowels gushed out" (Acts 1:18). The common Christian claim is that Judas hanged himself first, after which he fell and burst open. Indeed, one could consider the possibility that the rope or branch broke. However, Acts says that he fell "headlong" (Acts 1:18), which is highly unlikely when falling from a suicidal hanging (by the neck).

             Another suggestion is that Acts is merely recording Judas' burial (of sorts), not his death. In other words, Judas hanged himself as in Matthew's account, and then was taken down and thrown in the field, falling headlong and breaking open as in Acts. However, neither Luke's gospel nor Acts (claimed to be written by Luke) say anything else about Judas' death. Why would an author completely ignore a prominent character's death and then record his burial? It seems pretty evident to me that Acts 1:18 is indeed meant to represent Judas' death.

             Beyond that, not only are these proposed reconciliations unlikely, but there are also a couple other contradictions between these accounts. Matthew claims that the "chief priests" were the ones who "bought" the "potter's field" (Matthew 27:6-7). Luke and Acts do not report anything like Matthew's account of Judas returning the money, and Acts says that Judas himself bought the field (Acts 1:18)! So, Matthew and Acts don't agree about who bought the field.

             Also, Matthew indicates that the reason why "that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day" (Matt 27:8) is because it was used "to bury strangers in" (Matt 27:7) [or it could be alluding to "the price of blood" (Matt 27: 6)]. On the other hand, Acts says that the reason "that field is called" the "field of blood" is because "it was known" (Acts 1:19) how Judas "burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" (Acts 1:18). So, Matthew and Acts don't agree about the reason why the field was called the "Field of Blood."

            As such, the accounts of the events surrounding Judas' death in Matthew and Acts are utterly contradictory.

 

The Time of Jesus' Crucifixion

           Mark says, "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him" (Mark 15:25). Jews reckoned the hours of the day from sunup to sundown, which means that the "third hour" would have been mid-morning, sometime around 9:00AM.

           John, however, has Jesus' trial before Pilate still going on at "about the sixth hour" (John 19:14), which would be sometime around noon. Obviously, if Jesus was crucified around 9:00AM, then he could not have still been on trial before Pilate at noon.

           The common Christian claim is that John was writing from a Roman time that reckoned hours from midnight. So, this reasoning goes, John's "sixth hour" would be around 6:00AM, which then would not conflict with the 9:00AM crucifixion. However, the truth is that the Romans used sundials during the time in question, counting hours from sunup (not from midnight). Thus, the claim is wrong and does not resolve the conflict. (Besides, when compiling all the details in the four Gospels that would have had to have taken place between sunrise and "the sixth hour," 6:00AM is impractical anyway.)

           Another claim is that John was writing in three-hour time-blocks, and therefore the "sixth hour" could be anytime during hours four through six, and that there was a "gray area" where perceived hours could overlap. Thus, it is argued that John's "sixth hour" trial could have actually been the very beginning of the fourth hour, and with the "gray area" overlap between that and Mark's "third hour" crucifixion (assuming that it was late in that "third hour"), the timing could be reconciled. To me, though, this suggestion is ludicrous. First off, why would John not be capable of distinguishing between the "fourth" and "sixth hour"? Secondly, if the authors were inspired by an omniscient God, as Christians claim, then why would there have been any "gray area"? It seems that this reconciliation attempt is scraping the bottom of the barrel by one who is more interested in making the accounts agree than in honestly dealing with the texts.

 

Jesus' Genealogies

            Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy chronologically from Abraham through Joseph (Matt 1:1-17), claiming that there are three sets of "fourteen generations" from Abraham to Christ, which equals 42 generations. However, when you count the generations listed in Matthew, there are only 41. As such, Matthew contradicts itself here.

             A text note in my KJV Bible says that there are a few ancient manuscripts with an additional name Jakim (in Matt 1:11), which some could argue resolves that contradiction because it brings the total generations to 42. However, the name is not in the actual Biblical text, nor is it even mentioned in most Bibles' text notes. Also, even if Jakim had been included in the original text of Matthew, where it lists the three sets of "fourteen generations," one of those sets of 14 generations is "from David until the carrying away into Babylon" (1:17). Where the name Jakim is inserted would make for 15 generations there, and therefore we would still have a contradiction here.

            Moving on, we see that Luke traces Jesus' genealogy in reverse-chronology through Joseph all the way back to Adam (Luke 3:23-37). The interesting thing when comparing the Matthew and Luke's genealogies is that the sections between David and Joseph are completely different except for three names, Salathiel, Zorobabel and Eliakim (Matt 1:12-13; Luke 3:27,29), and one similar name, Matthan (Matt 1:15) and Matthat (Luke 3:24)! Of those names, Eliakim cannot be the same person in the two genealogies because Matthew has him as a descendant of Salathiel and Zorobabel (Matt 1:12-13) while Luke has him as their ancestor (Luke 3:27,29)! So, with Salathiel and Zorobabel being the same, and accepting Matthan and Matthat as possibly referring to the same person, we are left with 22 names in Matthew and 37 names in Luke (between David and Joseph) that do not match!

            In fact, Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob (Matt 1:16), while Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23), so the genealogies don't even agree a mere two generations back from Jesus! In addition, the portion in Luke's genealogy that traces Jesus back to Abraham (Luke 3:23-34) has 56 generations, which is 15 more generations than in Matthew's genealogy (a 37% increase). These genealogies are utterly contradictory!

            There are a few ways that Christians try to get out of this conundrum. One suggestion is that Luke was actually tracing Mary's genealogy instead of Joseph's. However, Luke does not mention Mary in his genealogy, but it specifically lists Joseph (Luke 3:23)! In addition, the previous chapter's Nativity story says that the reason why "Joseph also went… unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem" was specifically "because he was of the house and lineage of David" (Luke 2:4). Thus, it is pretty clear that the author of Luke was presenting Joseph's lineage.

            Another suggestion is that there may have been some adoptions in one of the genealogies, making it a legal lineage instead of a physical one. However, there is no indication of that in either genealogy, so it is basically a shot in the dark. Also, it fails to account for the 15 extra generations in Luke's genealogy. In addition, Jesus was supposed to be "the seed of David" (Romans 1:3), which means physical descendant, so adoptions wouldn't count and would therefore render such a genealogy meaningless.

            And, speaking of "the seed of David" (Rom 1:3) and physical lineage, both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus' genealogy through Joseph (Matt 1:16; Luke 3:23), whom they both claim was not Jesus' physical father (Matt 1:18-23; Luke 1:26-38)! As such, both of these contradictory genealogies are completely useless because they do not establish that Jesus is a physical descendant of David! In addition to that, kingship was traced through the men, and with Jesus not having a physical father, there is no male through which to trace his kingship!

 

Creation

 

            In the first creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:3), God makes the land animals before making man and woman together (Gen 1:24-27). However, in the second creation account (Gen 2:4-25), God forms the man before the animals (Gen 2:7,18-20), and afterward makes the woman (Gen 2:21-22). So here, within the first two chapters of the Bible, we have a contradiction.

            The common Christian argument is to try to claim that the second account really isn't a different creation account, but is rather an expansion of the sixth day of creation mentioned in the first account. However, this claim simply doesn't work. The second account deals with God making the earth and heavens (Gen 2:4), which was in the beginning of the first creation account (Gen 1:1). The second account deals with God making the vegetation (Gen 2:5-9), which was on the third day of the first creation account (Gen 1:11-12). So, it's not just recounting the sixth day.

            Also, the second account's version of the creation of the animals is placed within a flow of events that clearly can't be broken. First it says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground" (Gen 2:7). Next, with man already formed, it says, "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" (Gen 2:18). So, God decided to make a helper for the man he had already formed.

            After that we read, "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Gen 2:19-20). So, after God decided to make a helper for Adam, he creates the animals and brings them before Adam, but none of them is suitable as a helper for Adam.

           Finally it says, "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man" (Gen 2:21-22). As such, it was only after the animals were created and found unsuitable as a helper for the man that the woman was created.

           Some newer Bible versions (such as the NIV) change "formed" to "had formed" in Genesis 2:19, in an obvious attempt to downplay the discrepancy with the first creation account. However, not only does that attempt fail due to the aforementioned flow of events, but it is also clearly a mistranslation. The Hebrew term "yastar" is used in the imperfect tense in Genesis 2:19, and therefore means "formed," just as in an earlier usage in the story where it says, "And the Lord God formed man" (Gen 2:7). If the author had intended to mean "had formed" when mentioning the animals (Gen 2:19), then he would have used the perfect tense of "yastar," just as he did earlier where it says, "There he put the man whom he had formed" (Gen 2:8). Seeing that the author knew how to distinguish "formed" (Gen 2:7) from "had formed" (Gen 2:8) by switching between the imperfect and perfect tenses of the Hebrew word "yastar," he clearly would have known how to specify "had formed" in Genesis 2:19 by using the perfect tense of "yastar," if in fact he had meant "had formed." But that is not what we have in the text.

           Clearly, then, attempts to try to get Genesis 2:19 to be referring to a prior creation of the animals are simply in vain. The two creation accounts contradict each other regarding whether the animals were created before or after the man.

 

God's Power

 

            The Bible says, "The Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (Revelation 19:6), which means that God is all-powerful. We are told that God called himself "the Almighty God" (Genesis 17:1; 35:11). Jeremiah proclaims that "there is nothing too hard" for God (Jer 32:17). Jesus also reportedly said, "With God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26). Indeed, these and other similar passages represent the standard Christian view that God is all-powerful, that there is nothing too difficult for him.

            But we also read, "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron" (Judges 1:19). So here we have "the Lord" not having the power to drive out people with chariots of iron! How can iron chariots be too much for a supposedly all-powerful God?

            Some newer translations (such as the NIV) change "he" to "they" in an effort to make it appear that it was the men of Judah who could not drive out the iron chariots. However, the text clearly says that "the Lord was with Judah" (Judges 1:19), and we noted above that Jesus supposedly said, "With God all things are possible" (Matt 19:26). We also read, "When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them... For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you" (Deuteronomy 20:1,4). If that was true, then the men of Judahwould have been able to drive out the iron chariots. Clearly, then, this attempt at resolving the problem fails miserably, and we are left with God not having the power to defeat iron chariots! This directly contradicts the passages saying that God is all-powerful.

            When Jesus was in Nazareth, we are told, "And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them" (Mark 6:5). So here, other than a few healings, Jesus could not perform any mighty works, thus indicating that he was limited in power. Most Christians believe the Trinity, a doctrine that says that Jesus is "God the Son," thus making this another instance of God being limited in power. But even apart from Trinitarian theology, we noted above that Jesus supposedly said, "With God all things are possible" (Matt 19:26), so with God on Jesus' side, he surely should not have had limitations on what he could do.

            Some argue that Jesus was simply refusing to perform miracles because of the people's lack of faith. However, the text does not say that he wouldn't do mighty works there, it says that "he could there do no mighty work" (Mark 6:5), that is, "He could not do any miracles there" (NIV)! The Greek terminology used here for "could not" is the same as what is used when we read, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). Clearly, this is not talking about willingness, it is talking about ability!

            As such, we are left with contradictions regarding whether or not God is all-powerful.

 

Punishment for Own or Others' Sins

            We read, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20). Likewise, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16; II Kings 14:6). So, we are not to be held accountable for others' sins.

            But then we read, "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5; Deut 5:9; ref Ex 34:7; Numbers 14:18). We also see, "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers" (Isaiah 14:21). In addition, "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord" (Deut 23:2). So here we have people being punished for others' sins!

            The typical Christian response is to claim that this is referring to natural consequences. However, that is not at all supported by the text. We are told that it is "God" himself who is "visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children" (Ex 20:5; etc). God is the effecting cause here, not natural consequences. Indeed, some newer versions (such as the NIV) accurately translate it, "Punishing the children for the sin of the fathers." Regarding the examples given, "slaughter" is not a natural consequence (Is 14:21), nor is there any natural restraint that would keep a child born out of wedlock from entering the "the congregation of the Lord" (Deut 23:2). Clearly, this is not talking about natural consequences, but rather punishment. Thus, these texts contradict each other.

 

Conclusion from the Contradictions

 

             I have just demonstrated some contradictions in the Bible, and there are others that I haven't touched on here. From a logical standpoint, two accounts that contradict are in disagreement with each other and therefore cannot both be correct. If there is something incorrect in the Bible, then can it be inerrant? If it is not inerrant, then how can it be the perfect Word of God?

I should also clarify that even if the Bible were internally consistent, that alone would not prove that it is true. An internally consistent work of fiction is entirely possible. However, the fact that the Bible is not consistent does pose a serious problem for the doctrine of divine inspiration.

 

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

2. Fabricated Prophetic Fulfillments: There are claims of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible where the verses being quoted are taken completely out of context. The original OT writings were not saying anything about what the NT writers claimed.

 

2.)   There are no fabricated prophetic fulfillments.  

 

BUZZ!!! Wrong answer. This is the issue that really opened my eyes to how contrived the Gospel stories are. Here is what I've written on the subject:

 

FABRICATED PROPHETIC FULFILLMENTS

            One of the most significant Christian claims is that Jesus fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies, and therefore he must be the Messiah. If Jesus had indeed fulfilled numerous prophecies specifically directed at him, then that would definitely be something to strongly consider. Many Christians assume, as I did for many years, that such is the case, and that there is no question that Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied Savior. But did he really fulfill numerous prophecies? Let's take a look at some of those claims.

 

The Virgin Birth

            After Matthew mentions Mary's virginal conception from the Holy Ghost and the angel visiting Joseph (Matt 1:18-21), we read, "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matt 1:22-23). So, Matthew quotes a prophecy and says that it was fulfilled in Mary and Jesus. But is this really a fulfilled prophecy?

Matthew was quoting Isaiah saying, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). But is this really the open-and-shut case that it may appear on the surface to be? Let's take a look at the context.

During the time when Israel had split into two, with Judah in the south and Israel in the north, Isaiah says that Aram and Israel (also referred to as "Ephraim") came against Judah during the reign of King Ahaz, and Ahaz and the people of Judah were afraid (Isaiah 7:1-2). So God sent Isaiah to comfort Ahaz, telling him that he will not be defeated by the other two kingdoms (Isaiah 7:3-9), and even gives a specific time-frame by saying, "Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken" (Isaiah 7:8). Thus, Judah's enemy Ephraim is to be broken in no more than 65 years from the time of this prophecy.

Isaiah says that "the Lord" told Ahaz, "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God" (Isaiah 7:10-11). After that, Isaiah goes on to say, "Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign" (Isaiah 7:13-14). Now, who is this "sign" supposed to be for? Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz concerning the battle issues he was dealing with right then, hundreds of years before the time of Christ! King Ahaz would be long dead before Jesus would arrive on the scene, at which time it would be much later than the 65 year limit specified in the previous verses! Clearly, there is a problem here.

Let's go on. What is the "sign"? The description that follows says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). Now, one thing that needs pointed out about the word "virgin" is that Jewish scholars say that the Hebrew term "almah" in Isaiah's account actually means "young woman" or "girl of marriageable age," with no necessary "virgin" connotation. The Hebrew term "bethuwlah" is the word that means "virgin," but it is not the word used in Isaiah 7:14. As such, they insist that the text should read the way the NRSV translates it: "Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

When the Hebrew for Isaiah 7:14 was translated into Greek, "almah" was rendered as "parthenos," a Greek term usually meaning "virgin." Many scholars believe that this is a mistranslation. In turn, the author of Matthew clearly used the Greek translation as his source, and therefore used "parthenos" when quoting Isaiah in Matthew 1:23. Thus, Matthew did use a word usually meaning "virgin," but it appears to be based on a faulty Greek translation of Isaiah. In turn, it appears that most modern Christian translators base their translation of Isaiah on the Greek translation and the quotation in Matthew.

On the other hand, many Christian commentators agree that the Hebrew term "almah" means "young woman," but insist that it does have a "virgin" connotation, and therefore it is accurate to translate it as such. However, could this insistence that it be translated "virgin" be fueled by the Christian's theological necessity for it to mean "virgin"? After all, they clearly have a motivation to justify the use of this prophecy in Matthew. Beyond that, I have already demonstrated that the contextual limits on the passage indicate that it could not be about Jesus hundreds of years later, so the meaning of "almah" is not the only problem here anyway.

What then can we make of this debate about "almah"? Let's continue to examine the context to see what Isaiah was talking about.

Isaiah continues with, "For before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose good" (Isaiah 7:16). Here we see another problem with the Christian claim that the prophesied child is Jesus. According to Christian belief, Jesus was completely sinless (1 John 3:5), so how could there be a time when he wouldn't know to refuse evil and choose good?

Continuing on, Isaiah tells King Ahaz that during the prophesied son's early years, "the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (Isaiah 7:16). This is consistent with what Isaiah said earlier in the chapter: "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8-9a). It is interesting that Isaiah goes on talking about what it is supposed to be like "in that day" (Isaiah 7:18-25) and mentions the "king of Assyria" (Isaiah 7:20), and Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time of Jesus!

So, exactly who is the "son" that Isaiah was referring to? Perhaps his own! Take a look at what immediately follows this account. Isaiah says, "And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria" (Isaiah 8:3-4). This is a direct parallel to the prediction in the previous chapter. Isaiah and his wife (the "prophetess") conceive a son, and shortly thereafter Damascus/Syria and Samaria/Ephraim are supposed to be attacked and plundered (Isaiah 7:8-14; 8:3-4). Following the child's birth there is even a poetic oracle from "the Lord" (Isaiah 8:5-10) in which the term "Immanuel" is reiterated (Isaiah 8:8; compare to 7:14).

Some try to get around this glaring problem by arguing that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy," having an immediate fulfillment and then an ultimate fulfillment in the virginal conception of Jesus (assuming that "almah" means "virgin"). However, such an argument requires that there was another virginal conception before Mary's! Of course, Christians would refuse to consider that possibility. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the context of Isaiah's prophecy to suggest that it was meant as a "dual prophecy." That concept is forced onto the text by Christians in an attempt to make it be something that it clearly isn't.

Beyond that, from Isaiah's account of the child's conception, it is apparent that the child was conceived in the normal way, because Isaiah says that he "went unto the prophetess; and she conceived" (Isaiah 8:3). From this, it is quite clear that the prophecy in question (Isaiah 7:14) does not refer to a virginal conception. From this, we can conclude that either the Jews are correct in asserting that the Hebrew term "almah" does not mean "virgin," or, if the Christians are correct in asserting that it does connote "virgin," then Isaiah must have simply meant that she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was issued, but not at the time of conception.

From this, the obvious conclusion is that the story of Mary and Jesus simply is not a fulfillment of a prophecy of a virginal conception, because that is not what the prophecy was claiming, nor does the context of the prophecy allow it to be about Jesus!

So, what really happened is that Matthew's account took Isaiah's statement out of context and inaccurately included it as a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus' alleged virgin birth. The author of Matthew clearly misused the prophecy he relied on and fabricated a prophetic fulfillment.

 

Bethlehem as Jesus' Birthplace     

Matthew says that when some "wise men" go to Jerusalem seeking the "King of the Jews" (Matthew 2:1-2), King Herod calls the "chief priests and scribes," demanding that they tell him "where Christ should be born" (Matt 2:3-4). They reply, "In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel" (Matt 2:5-6). Afterwards, Herod sends them on their way, and they go and find Jesus in Bethlehem, just as the scribes and priests had indicated was prophesied (Matt 2:7-11; ref 2:1). So, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

            Matthew was loosely quoting from Micah 5:2, but can Jesus really be the fulfillment? In context, the "ruler" (Micah 5:2) is supposed to "deliver (Israel) from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders" (Micah 5:6). Now, when did Jesus ever fight against and defeat Assyria? Not only was Jesus not depicted as a warrior in the gospels, but Assyriaceased to exist several centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived! Not only that, but Jesus' kingdom is supposedly "not of this world" (John 18:36), so why would he be concerned about the "land" and "borders" (Micah 5:6) of Israel anyway?

Again, some allege that this is a "dual prophecy." Again, though, there is nothing in the context to suggest a dual prophecy. Some also try to get around the warrior aspect of Micah's prophecy by alleging that it refers to Jesus' second coming, when he's supposed to defeat the world. However, as already pointed out, the prophecy deals specifically with Assyria (Micah 5:5-6), which no longer exists to be defeated! Some argue that "Assyria" is meant figuratively. But, once again, there is nothing in the context to support the argument. Not only that, but there is nothing in Micah's prophecy to suggest two separate comings. Also, if the person being prophesied about was supposed to be identifiable by fulfilling the prophecy, then how can he be identified as the one when he has not fulfilled the whole prophecy?

These Christian arguments are forced onto the text, not gleaned from it, and are nothing more than attempts to get Micah's prophecy to fit with Matthew. As such, it looks like Matthew has once again taken a prophecy out of context in order to fabricate a fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Out of Egypt

            Matthew goes on to describe an angel telling Joseph to protect Jesus from being killed by Herod by taking the family from Bethlehem to Egypt (Matt 2:13), where they stay "until the death of Herod" (Matt 2:15). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son" (Matt 2:15). Here we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy, but is it really?

            Take a look at what Matthew was actually quoting from: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1). The alleged prophecy is not even about a future event at all, but a past event! Hosea is talking about the early years (relatively speaking) of "Israel," personifying the nation as a "child" and a "son," and referring to their release from bondage to Egypt (depicted in Exodus 12)! It has nothing whatsoever to do with a single individual hundreds of years later, but an entire nation hundreds of years before!

            Not only that, but the context presents a huge problem if Jesus is to be identified with this passage about Israel. It goes on to say, "They sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). Did Jesus turn away from God and sacrifice to idols?

            So again, Matthew has taken an Old Testament text out of context in an attempt to make Jesus fulfill prophecy.

 

The Slaughtered Children

            Matthew continues his story by telling that Herod "sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof" (Matt 2:16). Then we read, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not" (Matt 2:17-18). The use of this prophecy implies that the "children" being "not" is a reference to their deaths, and we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy, right?

            Let's take a look at Jeremiah's context. After making the statement that Matthew quoted (Jeremiah 31:15), it goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border" (Jer 31:16-17). It goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again (from) their captivity" (Jer 31:23).

            At the time that this was written, the Israelites had supposedly been conquered and many of them taken into exile. When Jeremiah said that Rachel's "children... were not" (Jer 31:15), he was referring to Rachel's descendants being removed from their land. As such, the prophecy in question is referring to what had already happened, not a future event, and clearly indicated that they would return. So, was Jeremiah talking about a slaughter of infants and toddlers hundreds of years later, as Matthew claims? Obviously not.

            So, we have yet another case of Matthew misusing an Old Testament text by taking it out of context in order to fabricate fulfilled prophecy.

 

The Chosen Servant

            Later on in Matthew's gospel, we read an account in which "great multitudes followed" Jesus "and he healed them all," telling them that "they should not make him known" (Matt 12:15-16). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust" (Matt 12:17-21). So, here is another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

            Let's take a closer look. Matthew quoted Isaiah 42:1-4, but what does the context indicate? Who is the "servant" that Isaiah was referring to? He clearly states in the preceding chapter, "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and have not cast thee away" (Isaiah 41:8-9). Clearly, then, the "servant" allegedly "chosen" by God is the nation of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, also referred to as Jacob.

            This is reiterated in the following chapters as well. We read, "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant: and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 44:1-2). Again, it's clear to see that the nation of Israel, also referred to as Jacob, is the servant ("Jesurun" means "the upright one" and is used as a symbolic name of Israel; also spelled "Jeshurun" and used in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26).

            He continues, "Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me" (Isaiah 44:21). In addition, we read, "The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob" (Isaiah 48:20), and, "Thou art my servant, O Israel" (Isaiah 49:3).

            While Isaiah repeatedly refers to Israel as God's "servant" and "chosen" one, he never once names anyone else as God's "servant"! In light of this, can there be any question at all about whom Isaiah is referring to as God's "servant," the "chosen" one?

            But, once again, some argue for a "dual prophecy," in which Jesus is the final fulfillment. However, is that really supported by the text? Not only does Isaiah not mention a dual fulfillment, but does the Jesus of the gospels really fit the description of the "servant"? In the very same chapter of Isaiah that Matthew quoted we read, "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? Or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? Who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not" (Isaiah 42:18-20). Was the Jesus of the gospels blind and deaf to the word of God? Did the Jesus of the gospels pay no attention to his Master?

            Clearly, then, Jesus was not a fulfillment of the "servant" in Isaiah. The "servant" was Israel, allegedly chosen by God, but rebellious against his ways. The servant that Isaiah claimed that God would make "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6) is the nation of Israel, as is seen throughout Isaiah.

            So, once again, we have a case of Matthew misusing the Old Testament to fabricate a claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

 

Ever Hearing, Never Understanding

            Matthew says that the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables (Matt 13:10). In Jesus' reply he said, "Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Matt 13:13). Then Jesus claims, "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matt 13:14-15). Here we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

Matthew was loosely quoting Isaiah, but the original was stated as a command, and not a prophecy of a future event. Isaiah said that he was told, "Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eye, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

Isaiah continued by saying that he inquired, "Lord, how long?" (Isaiah 6:11), to which he was answered, "Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. But yet in it shall be a tenth" (Isaiah 6:11-13). Clearly, this describes Israel being taken captive in exile. It was "until" that time that Isaiah was supposed to issue the command.

As such, we have a command for Isaiah to issue until the time of the exile, and not a prophecy of people during Jesus' time! Again, we see that Matthew has taken Isaiah out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in his story of Jesus. This time is even more serious, though, in that Jesus was speaking in Matthew's text, and therefore the error is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

Beyond that, the concept of trying to keep people from converting is quite the opposite of what evangelical Christianity claims! Indeed, it essentially contradicts the teaching that God wants "all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).

 

Uttering Parables

            After Matthew mentions that Jesus taught the crowd with parables (Matt 13:34), we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world'" (Matt 13:35). Once again, let's take a closer look at this claim of fulfilled prophecy.

            The quotation comes from a psalm of Asaph, which starts out, "Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old" (Psalm 78:1-2). Here Asaph claims that he himself is going to utter parables, and those parables are exactly what we find in the remainder of this very psalm, as Asaph recounts story after story about Israel's past (Psalm 78:5-72).

Asaph's psalm does not give any prophetic prediction whatsoever. From the context, then, it is quite clear that the comment in question (Psalm 78:2) was not a prophecy of Jesus telling parables!

So, once again, we have Matthew misusing an Old Testament text to make it appear as though Jesus fulfilled prophecy. It should also be pointed out that even if this had been a prophecy, the fact is that any mere mortal human could self-fulfill a prophecy about telling stories simply by telling stories, and thus there would be no miracle involved at all. But, of course, it wasn't really even a prophecy.

 

Shared Bread

            John's gospel says that Jesus identified Judas as the one who would betray him (John 13:18-30) by giving him a "sop" (piece of bread) that he "dipped" (John 13:26). One of Jesus' statements during this scene was, "But that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (John 13:18). Again, let's take a closer look.

            Jesus was quoting a psalm that said, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). Throughout this psalm, David is describing the actions of his enemies, God's protection from them, and his own pleading for God's mercy. David is most certainly talking about himself and one of his own friends!

            Again, though, some argue for a "dual fulfillment," saying that David was talking about himself and prophesying a future event with Jesus and Judas. However, there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest any such second meaning. Beyond that, taking this passage as a prophecy of Jesus is extremely problematic, because it also says, "I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee" (Psalm 41:4). When did the Jesus of the gospels sin against God?

            So, we clearly have yet another Old Testament passage taken out of context and misused in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy. And, again, this one is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Hating Jesus Without Reason

            John's gospel says that Jesus told his disciples that they would be hated by the world, just as he was allegedly hated by the world (John 15:18-24). Then Jesus claimed, "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause" (John 15:25). So here we have another claim of fulfillment.

            The quotation is of a phrase used in two psalms of David. In one we read, "They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). David is talking about himself in this psalm and gives no indication whatsoever of any future person meant to fulfill these words. Beyond that, if this is to be taken as referring to Jesus, then the very next statement is extremely problematic. It says, "O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee" (Psalm 69:5). Was Jesus guilty of foolishness and sin?

            The other psalm using the phrase John quoted says, "Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause" (Psalm 35:19). Again, David is talking about himself, and once again the context proves problematic if this is to be taken as a reference to Jesus. The psalm starts out by saying, "Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help. Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation" (Psalm 35:1-3). When did Jesus pray for God to fight against those pursuing his life? When did he pray for God to draw the spear against them?

It goes on to say, "Rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions" (Psalm 35:17). For clarity of meaning, here is a different translation: "Rescue my life from their ravages, my precious life from these lions" (NIV). There is no mention whatsoever of submitting to a plan of God to be put to death, there is pleading for his life. How is this consistent with the Jesus of the gospels?

            So, once again, we have Old Testament passages taken out of context and misconstrued as prophecies of Jesus.

 

No Bones Broken

            John's gospel tells us that the solders broke the legs of those being crucified, but that since Jesus was already dead, they did not break his legs (John 19:31-33). John claims, "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken" (John 19:36). Yet again, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

            The quotation is from a psalm of David. Once again, though, the context does not support the claim that it was a prophecy of Jesus. We read, "Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken" (Psalm 34:19-20). Did God deliver Jesus from the trouble of the cross or expect him to endure it? David is making a generalized statement about "the righteous" (see also verse 17) and implies that in life they will be protected, but Jesus was allegedly already dead, so what would be the point of protecting his bones then? Also, there is no hint whatsoever in David's words that he was envisioning a sacrifice of Jesus hundreds of years later in which no legs were broken.

            So, again, we have a statement taken out of context and misused to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus.

 

The One They Have Pierced

            John says that when the soldiers didn't break Jesus' bones, they pierced him with a spear instead (John 19:33-34). John then claims that this was in fulfillment (John 19:36) of what "another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced'" (John 19:37). One more time, let's take a closer look.

            This quotation comes from Zechariah, where we read, "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (Zechariah 12:10). This is allegedly a quote from God (Zech 12:1), and is therefore a text cited by many Christians to claim that Jesus is God. But is this really talking about Jesus?

            In context, Zechariah's prophecy is about God destroying Jerusalem's enemies (Zech 12:1ff). He specifically states, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech 12:9). Did the Jesus of the gospels do that when the people looked upon his piercing? Of course not!

            Once again, we see that John has taken a passage out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in Jesus.

 

Called a Nazarene

            Another interesting one is the claim that Jesus "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matthew 2:23). One more time, let's take a closer look.

            The prophecy in question is found in... uh, it's found at... well, um, nowhere! The statement, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23) does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament, nor is there any statement even resembling it! This "prophecy" is pulled out of thin air!

            Of course, Christians have a couple ways of trying to get around this problem. One suggestion is that this is a loose reference to the Nazarite vow, in which "either man or woman shall separate themselves" and make "a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord" (Numbers 6:2). However, this in not a prediction at all, nor is it referring to where someone is from (i.e., Nazareth). "Nazarite" and "Nazarene" are simply two different things. In addition, the Nazarite text says, "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink" (Numbers 6:3), but Jesus is said to have drunk wine (Luke 7:33-34). Thus, the Nazarite vow suggestion is simply taking the text completely out of context in order to try to make the Nazarene prophecy exist.

            Another suggestion is that the prophecy is found in the words, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah 11:1). The argument is that the Hebrew term for "branch" is "netser," which is similar to the Aramaic word for "Nazarene." But this argument also has problems. First, the words are not actually the same, just similar, and Isaiah does not say, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23). Second, it is not talking about location at all, but is using the imagery of a rod and a branch growing out of a stem and roots. Third, the text says that this branch "shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked" (Isaiah 11:4), which Jesus of Nazareth did not do. Fourth, the New Testament authors used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which uses the Greek word "anthos" instead of the Hebrew word "netser" for the "branch" (Isaiah 11:1). So, once again we have a text being taken out of context in order to try to make the Nazarene prophecy exist.

            As such, we are left with a New Testament claim of a fulfillment of a prophecy that doesn't exist in the Old Testament! It is yet another fabricated prophetic fulfillment.

 

Conclusion from the Fabricated Prophetic Fulfillments

           I have just demonstrated several misuses of the Old Testament by New Testament authors fabricating prophetic fulfillments, and there are more.

            How can the claim that Jesus is proven by fulfilled prophecy be believed when over and over and over again we see that the original writings have been misused and distorted? It sounds more and more like the gospel writers were making up a story, since they were misconstruing texts from the Hebrew Scriptures in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments in the key character. After all, if they had a true story worth believing, then why would they need to resort to such underhanded tactics?

Christians assert that it was a miracle for Jesus to fulfill so many prophecies about him and that nobody could fulfill them all by chance, but that is nonsense. One could easily hand-pick statements from a vast work like the Old Testament, take them out of context and apply them to any number of individuals that the original authors never had in mind. It would be even easier if the character, or at least his story, is made up to begin with. In other words, all of these alleged prophetic fulfillments prove nothing about Jesus!

            Christians often vilify Jews for rejecting their "Messiah." Indeed, I used to wonder how the Jews couldn't see that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but now that I have studied it closer I can understand why. The simple fact is that the Jews who take their religion seriously can clearly see how Christians have butchered the Hebrew Scriptures! They are not convinced that Jesus fulfilled prophecy because it is a simple fact that he didn't, as has been demonstrated.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

3. Other Prophetic Issues: There are failed predictions in the Bible.

 

3.)   Not all prophecies have been fulfilled yet. 

 

Yet some were supposed to have been fulfilled a long time ago, and there are other prophetic problems as well. This section is not as extensive as I would have liked for it to be, but it does cover a couple real problems with Bible prophecy, and the third listing addresses a prophecy that Christians often erroneously tout as having been fulfilled. Here is what I've written on this subject:

 

OTHER PROPHETIC ISSUES

            Having just looked at several examples of fabricated prophetic fulfillments, a few other prophetic issues could use some attention.

 

The Generation That Passed Away

            When discussing end-times prophecy, Jesus allegedly said, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matthew 24:34; ref Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). Yet here we are, a couple millennia after the generation that Jesus was speaking to, and the end has not come! Did Jesus not know what he was talking about?

            One response Christians give is that "this generation" is not referring to the generation in which Jesus lived, but instead refers to the generation in which the end-times scenario begins to unfold. In other words, all the end-times events will happen within one generation. However, this argument is flawed, because Jesus specifically stated, "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matt 24:34). What are "all these things" that Jesus had been talking about? The end-times teaching (Matt 24:4-44) was given in response to the disciples asking about "these things" (Matt 24:3) that Jesus had just mentioned regarding the temple, "Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Matt 24:1-2). The temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and the generation that lived then has long since passed. Also, when referring to the generation that wouldn't pass away, Jesus specifically called it "this generation" (Matt 24:34), thus indicating the generation they were living in. If he had meant to be referring to some generation in the distant future, then it would have been more appropriate to say that generation; yet that is not how it is phrased. In addition, immediately preceding that statement, Jesus told the disciples, "Ye shall see all these things" (Matt 24:33). Telling them that they would see all that he had been describing also indicates that "this generation" (Matt 24:34) meant the generation alive at that time. Therefore, Christians' attempt to move "this generation" several millennia into the future simply does not work.

            Another response is that "generation" could also be translated "race," and therefore Jesus was just saying that the Jewish race would not pass away until everything was fulfilled. However, if this was really true, then surely we would see modern translations reflecting that. Yet we don't see that; modern translations still use the word "generation" (NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, AMP, CEV) or an equivalent  such as "the people of this time" (NCV). While some Bibles do contain a footnote saying that the word for "generation" could also mean "race," if the context really warranted that translation, we would be seeing "race" used in the actual text. But we don't see that. In fact, The Amplified Bible (which attempts to amplify the meanings of the original words) specifies that it refers to "the whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite, given period." That correlates to a generation, not race. Clearly then, the text has Jesus specifying that the end-times would happen before his generation all passed away! But that didn't happen, did it?

            And what do other Biblical authors have to say? The author of Hebrews wrote, "For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry" (Hebrews 10:37), indicating that he expected Jesus' return to happen soon and not be delayed. In writings attributed to Paul we read, "We shall not all sleep (die), but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump" (I Corinthians 15:51-52), where "we" clearly indicates Paul and the people he was writing to. Similarly, "And they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (I Cor 10:11), where "our" clearly indicates Paul and the people he was writing to. We also read that "the time is short" (I Cor 7:29), "The Lord is at hand" (Philippians 4:5), "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord" (I Thesselonians 4:15) and "the day of Christ is at hand" (II Thes 2:2), all of which clearly indicate the thought that the end was near at the time he wrote.

From other authors we also read, "But the end of all things is at hand" (I Peter 4:7), "it is the last time" (I John 2:18), "the time is at hand" (Revelation 1:3; 22:10), and the end-times events are "things which must shortly be done" (Rev 22:6).

In addition, Jesus reportedly also said, "I come quickly" (Rev 3:11; 22:7,12,20). Some argue that this particular saying merely means that when Jesus returns, it will happen really fast. However, the Greek word used is "tachy," which means "quickly" in the sense of without delay. This is also easily understood from the context in which it was used in Revelation 22, because, as noted in the previous paragraph, that very chapter specifies that it is talking about "things which must shortly be done" (Rev 22:6), that "the time is at hand" (Rev 22:10). Indeed, some newer translations even clarify "I come quickly" by translating it as "I am coming soon" (NIV).

Can there be any doubt that the authors of the New Testament were saying that the end would happen in their generation, just as Jesus himself supposedly said?

           In response, some point to Peter saying, "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering" (II Peter 3:8-9). The argument is that Peter knew it could be a long time. However, keep in mind that the previous letter attributed to Peter said that "the end of all things is at hand" (I Pet 4:7), clearly indicating an imminent event. It appears that after time passed and the end did not come, the author realized that they had been wrong, and thus altered his approach to the subject. Yet, if the Bible was divinely inspired, as many Christians insist, then would there be such flip-flopping? Would there have ever been an erroneous claim that the end would happen in their generation?

            As such, what are we to make of this? The Bible has Jesus and New Testament authors saying that the end would happen in their generation. Yet that did not happen. Clearly, then, we have failed prophecies, thus undermining Biblical authority.

 

Jeconiah (Jechonias / Coniah)

            Jeconiah is recorded as the king of Judah when the Babylonian captivity took place (Esther 2:6; Jeremiah 24:1). He is said to be the son of Jehoiakim (I Chronicles 3:16; Jer 24:1) and the father of Salathiel (I Chron 3:17). So, what is the significance of this? Let's take a look.

            Jeremiah prophesied, "As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah (Jeconiah) the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; ...Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? ...Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" (Jer 22:24,28,30). That's a pretty clear prophecy, isn't it? No descendant of Jeconiah will ever be permitted to ascend to the throne of David.

            Yet we see that Matthew's version of Jesus' genealogy includes "Jechonias" at "the time they were brought to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel" (Matt 1:11-12). Clearly, this is in reference to the Jeconiah/Coniah about whom Jeremiah made the prophecy, "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David"! Now, if Jesus is supposed to be given "the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:32), then we have a serious problem with Jeconiah being included in Jesus' genealogy!

            Some may try to suggest that this is not meant to be the same Jeconiah, and they may even point to the fact that Matthew calls him the son of Josias instead of Jehoiakim (Matt 1:11). Yet these very same people who would want to point this out seem to have no problem whatsoever with the fact that the two genealogies of Jesus are loaded with different names and are seriously contradictory (as I discussed in the "Contradictions" section)! If they have no problem with different names being used, then they have no case here. In addition, the fact that Matthew does specify that it was at the time of the Babylonian captivity and lists Salathiel as Jochonias' son (Matt 1:11) is a very good indicator that it's meant to be the same Jeconiah. In addition, my KJV Bible's text note indicates that a few ancient manuscripts insert Jakim as Jechonias' father, and given that the texts are being translated from different languages, Jakim could be a reference to Jehoiakim. At any rate, the suggestion that this is not meant to be the same person is a weak argument.

            Some may point to the fact that the genealogy in Matthew is traced through Joseph (Matt 1:16), who supposedly was not Jesus' physical father (Matt 1:18), thus arguing that Jesus isn't a descendant of Jeconiah. But then again, what's the point of the genealogy? The obvious intent in the genealogy was to give Jesus' lineage, tracing him through David in order to meet the requirements that Jesus be of "the seed of David" (ref Romans 1:3). With the break between Jesus and Joseph, the genealogy is thus rendered completely useless, since it does not establish Jesus as a physical descendant of David (as pointed out in the "Contradictions" section)!  

            Another argument could be that Jesus didn't rule from Judah (Jer 22:30). While that is true, it misses the point that Jesus never physically took David's throne at all, even though he was supposedly given "the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:32). Christians take the throne of David as symbolic when referring to Jesus, in which case the reference to a physical Judah would not have any logical bearing on the matter. The fact is that the prophecy in Jeremiah says that no descendant of Jeconiah would be able to ascend to the throne of David, yet Jeconiah is included in a genealogy of Jesus, and therefore Jesus is forbidden from ascending to the throne of David!

 

Modern State of Israel

            Here I want to turn my attention to the claim that prophecy was fulfilled when Jews returned to their homeland in 1948. While this particular issue doesn't directly pertain to my loss of faith, it is often cited as alleged "proof" that the Bible was inspired by God, and as such I think the matter deserves some attention.

            We read, "And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country" (Ezekiel 34:13). Further on we see, "Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all" (Eze 37:21-22). Passages like these are cited as having been fulfilled with the rebirth of Israel in 1948. But is this claim legitimate? Let's dig deeper.

            Ezekiel goes on to say, "And David my servant shall be king over them" (Eze 37:24). Yet the new Israel does not have a king, it has a president. In addition, that president is not David, nor has he been established as a descendant of David (a fair interpretation of the prophecy). In fact, in Christianity it is Jesus who is supposedly given "the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:32), but is Jesus reigning in Israel now? Clearly, this is not fulfilled.

            We also read, "And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel" (Eze 37:28), yet what heathen knows such a thing? Unless we categorize Christians as heathens, this is also unfulfilled.

            Ezekiel also says, "The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand" (Eze 37:15-17). It goes on to explain, "Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and hey shall be one in mine hand" (Eze 37:19).

            There we see a clear reference to "the tribes of Israel," yet the tribes of Israel remain completely undefined in modern Israel. There is no traced lineage establishing all 12 tribes. In fact, it was the Jews who returned to Israel. The term "Jew" is ultimately derived from a Latin word that means "Judean," or "from the land of Judea." If those who returned to Israel really were Jews (literally "Judean"), then that would mean that what we have represented in Israel today is people of the southern kingdom of Judah, and not those of the northern (and larger) kingdom of Israel (after the original kingdom of Israel was split in two). Therefore, the prophecy of joining all the tribes of the two kingdoms back together remains unfulfilled.

            Another interesting point is that modern Israel does not have all the land that was supposedly part of the kingdom of Israel during the reigns of David and Solomon, and therefore the nation has not been fully restored.

            While I have not extensively studied the current State of Israel, these points alone are sufficient to demonstrate that what we have in modern Israel is not a fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy in Ezekiel. Those who believe that it is a fulfillment of divine prophecy are simply engaging in wishful thinking.

 

Conclusion from Other Prophetic Issues

            Here I have demonstrated a few prophetic problems that undermine the concept of divine inspiration and undermine Jesus' right to the throne of David, and I have shown how the modern State of Israel is not a legitimate fulfillment of prophecy. From this, and especially when combined with the previous category of Fabricated Prophetic Fulfillments, we see that the whole concept of Biblical prophecy is seriously flawed.

            One other point to consider, though, is that even if it could be demonstrated that something the Bible predicted came true, would that automatically prove that the Bible writers were divinely inspired? Keep in mind that there are a lot of predictions in the Bible, so on the basis of statistical probability alone, it would not be surprising if a few details came true. Consider the fact that modern "psychics" make a bunch of predictions, and then a few of them come true. Focusing only on the predictions that come true, one may think the psychics really have supernatural powers. However, when considering the volume of predictions that psychics make and the fact that the vast majority of their predictions do not come true, we can easily see that it is just a matter of statistical probability that some of their predictions actually do come true. There is nothing supernatural about that at all. In the same way, a few "fulfilled prophecies" of the Bible would not prove that the writers had been granted supernatural knowledge, especially when considering the plethora of predictions (and the vagueness of some of them) in the Bible and the serious problems that exist with many Bible prophecies (some of which I have addressed).

            Another thing to consider concerning end-times prophecies is that virtually every generation for the past two millennia has interpreted the Bible's end-times prophecies as being about their generation. Indeed, as already noted, even Jesus reportedly said that the end would come during his generation! The fact is that Jesus and every subsequent generation has been wrong. In addition, when things are vague or when the context is ignored, one can make a text mean all sorts of things that the original author never envisioned. That is not fulfillment of prophecy! It is nothing simply manipulating the texts to suit one's own purposes, trying to force the events of a given generation onto texts that were not really referring to those events.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

4. Cruelties and Injustices: There are supposedly divinely sanctioned cruelties and injustices in the Bible (you have cited cruelty as a reason to reject the Quran, so what about the Bible?).

 

4.)   Because there is no injustice with God.   When God destroys and kills it is not cruelty or injustice.   With the koran , muslims are  to destroy and kill to bring the nation they live in under submission to  Shariah Law.   Islam has changed the Bible.  

 

Cruelty and injustice are cruelty and injustice regardless of who is committing them. Excusing a tyrant does not make him not a tyrant. Here is what I've written on this subject:

 

CRUELTIES AND INJUSTICES

            Since 9/11 there has been a lot of talk about Islamic terrorism and acts of violence and cruelty. Many Christians have been very outspoken against the violence that some Muslims commit in the name of Allah. Ironically, though, it seems that many Christians have forgotten the way that the God of the Bible supposedly allowed the Hebrews to commit acts of cruelty and other forms of injustice. In fact, not only was it allowed, but it was sometimes even commanded. Beyond that, the God of the Bible himself even commits injustice. Let's take a look at some of these.

 

Delightfully Murdering Infants

            It is disturbing to read, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts... slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (1 Samuel 15:2-3). Not to distract from the other killings commanded there, but would a loving and compassionate God command that children and infants be murdered?

There is also this command: "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17), and there are more like this. Such slaughter inevitably includes the murder of innocent little children and babies. So much for the Christian doctrine of "sanctity of life"!

            Even more disturbing is the attitude with which the psalmist declared, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:9)! How can such delight in the brutal murder of infants be inspired by a loving and compassionate God? Can this attitude come from the same God as in the words attributed to Jesus, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14)?

            God even commands angels, "Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women" (Ezekiel 9:5-6). What is this fascination that God has with murdering little children? Regardless of what any of the adults here may have done, there is nothing that a little child could have done to deserve capital punishment! Again, so much for "sanctity of life."

            How can Christians condemn Muslims for murdering innocent people when Christians' own Bible has passages condoning the murder of innocent little children?

 

Slavery

            It is commonly known that the Old Testament indicates that many Hebrews had slaves. Some of them apparently were destitute fellow Hebrews who had sold themselves as bondservants, but others were foreigners who were actually taken captive and forced into slavery.

            It seems that a common Christian thought on the subject is that God was not really pleased with slavery, but just passively allowed the Hebrews to have slaves. However, with such a thick set of laws (read Exodus through Deuteronomy) dealing with things as trivial as cutting sideburns and beards (Leviticus 19:27) and eating insects (Lev 11:20), why couldn't God find the space and time to condemn slavery?

            In actuality, the Bible not only does not condemn slavery, but also has God granting permission for the Hebrews to take slaves. In Leviticus we read, "And the Lord spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...'" (Leviticus 25:1-2), "Both thy bondmen, and they bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession" (Lev 25:44-45). These bondmen and bondmaids were slaves.

We also read, "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee" (Deuteronomy 20:10-11). Here it's talking about forced labor, making slaves out of enemies. So, slavery wasn't just a passive allowance, as many Christians claim, but it is an active allowance, an act that they were clearly granted permission to do.

            Common Christian thought is that God regulated slavery through the Law so that it would not be brutal like the slavery we typically think of. While there are indeed laws in the Old Testament concerning slavery, brutality was actually permissible, as long as the slave didn't die immediately. In Exodus we read, "And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel...'" (Exodus 20:22): "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand: he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money" (Ex 21:20-21). Some suggest that this law was simply to give the Hebrew slave-owner the benefit of the doubt. However, how could any honest person actually think that beating someone so badly that he or she could die within a couple days is not brutality? How could an allegedly loving and compassionate God allow for such brutality?

            Even in the New Testament, slavery is acknowledged but not condemned. We read, "Servants, obey in all things your masters" (Colossians 3:22), "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters" (Titus 2:9), and, "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters" (Ephesians 6:5). At least that last passage does go on to say, "And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening" (Eph 6:9), thus indicating that masters should treat their slaves well. That is an improvement over the Old Testament treatment of the subject, but is it good enough? Why couldn't they condemn the practice of owning people as property? Why sit back and allow slavery to continue? How ethical is that?

 

War and Genocide

            War is a topic that is highly debated. Some Christians believe that Christian precepts should be enforced at any cost, while other Christians take the opposite extreme and suggest that any involvement in war (or even simply using legal courts) is inherently evil. Most Christians would likely fall somewhere in between those two extremes.

Dealing with the topic of war can be difficult, as there are so many factors involved that it can be difficult to assess just when (if ever) there is a just cause for going to war. For the sake of discussion here, it is not my intent to try to go to any extreme. I will say, though, that for war to be ethically acceptable, at the very least there must be an attempt to only target guilty individuals and the military/warriors, not the innocent civilians. Indiscriminately wiping out entire civilizations is genocide, plain and simple. As such, there are some troubling factors with war in the Old Testament.

            When God was supposedly preparing the Hebrews to take over their "promised land," he gave them quite a command. We read, "When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee... seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them" (Deuteronomy 7:1-2). Later on we read, "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them... as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

So, at the command of God, the Hebrews were supposed to barge into a land inhabited by others, declare war, wipe them all out, and steal their land. This is not a case of finding some guilty people and bringing them to justice, this is genocide, wiping out entire communities of people and animals!

            There are many other instances of God allegedly commanding the Hebrews to go to war (Numbers 25:16-18; 31:1-2; Deuteronomy 2:24-25; 3:1-2; Joshua 1:1-9; 8:1-2; Judges 1:1-2; I Samuel 15:1-3; 23:1-2; 30:7-8; II Samuel 5:17-19; I Chronicles 14:8-10), often wiping out entire communities, sometimes to take land. Another battle detail we read is, "And Joshua did unto them as the Lord bade him: he houghed their horses" (Joshua 11:9). "Houghed" means hamstrung, which is a very cruel thing to do, and this to mere animals, supposedly under the direction of God! How could these horses be guilty of sin? Again, destroying entire communities is genocide. That's an awful lot of commanded killing for a God who supposedly said, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13).

            How can genocide be ethically justifiable? This stuff looks a lot more like the Israelites using religion as a justification for cruel rampages based on greed and racism than something genuinely coming from a benevolent God.

           

Rape and Forced Marriage

            "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). "Lay hold" here is referring to seizing, and this is clearly talking about rape. In fact, some newer versions (such as the NIV) even translate it "rape." So, a victim of rape is required by law to be married to her rapist! This is basically a "you break it, you buy it" policy. The rape victim is violated, so she's damaged goods, and thus the rapist has to buy her! How is that for divine justice?

            "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and has a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house... thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife" (Deut 21:10-13). Here we have a war "captive" being forced to marry a man who desires her. Forced marriage is not consensual, and therefore this is rape being advocated by the God of the Bible!

            "And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31:15,17-18). So what is the point of keeping the female virgins for themselves? The obvious implication here is the same as what was explicitly stated in the previous passage examined; they are kept to be married, which would be forced marriage, which is nonconsensual, which is rape. Thus, we have Moses, supposedly a man of God, advocating rape!

            Peter talks about God "turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes" and says that he "delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)" (II Peter 2:6-8).      So, Lot was a "just" and "righteous man," huh? Maybe we should take a look at how the original story played out:

            Two angels go as men to Sodom and Lot brings them into his home (Genesis 19:1-3), then a mob forms and wants to "know" the men (Gen 19:4-5), implying sex (and thus indicated in newer translations). While Lot refuses to send the men out to the mob (Gen 19:6-7), he then says, "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known a man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof" (Gen 19:8)! So here Lot, who is supposedly a righteous man who is vexed by the community's sin, offers to throw his daughters out to the mob and let them rape and abuse them however they want!

            Some try to soften this by pointing out that Lot doesn't actually throw his daughters out to the mob, but that's merely because the mob rejected his offer (Gen 19:9)! How could any "righteous man" even think of doing such a thing? As a father of two daughters myself, I would NEVER consider throwing them to a mob! That's just cruel and unjust, plain and simple.

 

Punishment for Others' Sins

            In the "Contradictions" section I dealt with how the Bible contradicts itself regarding whether or not people are punished for others' sins. Here I want to focus on the fact that punishing people for things they didn't do is clearly injustice.

            To recap, the Bible says, "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5; Deut 5:9; ref Ex 34:7; Numbers 14:18). We also see, "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers" (Isaiah 14:21). In addition, "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord" (Deut 23:2). How is justice served by punishing people for things they did not do?

            Also consider the familiar story of David and Bathsheba. David saw Bathsheba, lusted for her, had her brought to him and "lay with her" (II Samuel 11:2-4). Bathsheba became pregnant, so David had her husband Uriah put on the frontlines of battle so he would be killed (II Sam 11:5-17), and then David married Bathsheba (II Sam 11:27). Then we read, "And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick... And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died" (II Sam 12:15,18). So here we see that David sinned, but God punished the baby! An innocent little child was made sick and received capital punishment for something the child had no control over!

            According to that story God broke his own word that says, "Neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16)! But, of course, I already addressed that in the "Contradictions" section.

           So, where is the justice in slaughtering children for things done by their fathers? Where is the justice in alienating a child born out of wedlock? How could the children be responsible for what their parents did?

 

The Fall

            Another story, often referred to as "The Fall," is very familiar. Following the creation stories we read that God said, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it" (Genesis 2:18), after which a "serpent" convinced "the woman" to eat the fruit of that tree, which she and "her husband... did eat" (Gen 3:1-6).

            We read that God cursed the woman by saying, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and... thy husband... shall rule over thee" (Gen 3:16), which obviously carries over to subsequent women. But how is justice served by punishing other women for what one woman supposedly had done?

            God also cursed the man by saying, "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee... In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" (Gen 3:17-19), which obviously carries over to subsequent men. As with the women, how is justice served by punishing other men for what one man supposedly did?

            God even cursed the serpent by saying, "Thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life" (Gen 3:14). Evidently this story implies that serpents originally had legs, but now they will slither on their bellies, which obviously would apply to all snakes. As with the people, how is justice served by cursing other serpents for what one serpent allegedly did?

            As a side note, Christians interpret the serpent in this passage as Satan. If that was true, then we'd have a story where serpents were cursed for something not literally done by a serpent at all, but by an evil mastermind known as Satan. With that said, the fact is that Satan is not mentioned anywhere in this passage. In fact, the author clearly attributed the serpent's actions to the serpent himself being "subtil" (Gen 3:1), or "crafty" (NIV). This is not at all a reference to an outside influence on the serpent. The idea of it being a manifestation of Satan is a later interpretation being forced onto a text that says nothing of the sort.

           Of course, Revelation refers to "that old serpent" as "the Devil" (Rev 12:9; 20:2), but Revelation is one of the last books of the Bible to be written and represents a much later perspective; it does not prove that the author of Genesis 3 meant that the serpent was Satan. In fact, if the author of Genesis 3 had thought of the serpent as Satan, then he would have been lying to attribute the serpent's actions to its own craftiness (Gen 3:1)!

            But let's get back to the man and woman (i.e., Adam and Eve). Not only is it unjust to punish others for their sin, but was it even just to punish Adam and Eve? Did they even really "sin"? Let's think about this. If the forbidden fruit would impart "the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen 2:17) and they did not have their eyes opened until after they ate it (Gen 3:6-7), then how could they discern between good and evil beforehand? Christians point to God saying to not eat the fruit (Gen 2:17), but how could they have known that it would be evil to disobey if they did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil? How could they know that it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit if they had not yet been given the ability to discern between right and wrong? How is it fair to create people without an understanding of right and wrong and then punish them for doing a wrong act that they were created without the ability to understand was wrong? With such an absurd scenario, how can what they did be "sin"?

            Some Christians reply by saying that the "knowledge of good and evil" meant an experiential knowledge, and thus they knew the difference but hadn't experienced evil until they ate the fruit. This suggestion has some flaws, though. First, we're dealing with not only the knowledge of evil, but "the knowledge of good and evil." Thus, if "knowledge" meant experience, then they had not experienced good either until they ate of the forbidden fruit. Second, God supposedly said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen 3:22). As such, if the "knowledge" they gained was experiencing evil, then the fact that what they gained was like God (literally the gods), then that would mean that God had experienced evil himself (which, of course, doesn't fit with standard Christian theology). Third, God specified the reason why he kicked them out of the garden by saying, "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Gen 3:22-23). Therefore, the "tree of life" would impart life forever, so the logical conclusion would be that the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was meant to actually impart "the knowledge of good and evil." Ultimately, then, the "experiential" argument doesn't work and we're left with a story of God punishing people for doing something that he did not give them the ability to know was wrong. How is that just?

This is basically a story in which God cursed the man and woman for doing something supposedly wrong when he had specifically programmed them to not know it was wrong, kicked them out of the garden so they would not be able to gain eternal life, cursed all their descendents (who had nothing to do with "The Fall"), and cursed all of the snake's descendants (who also had nothing to do with "The Fall"). This whole story is completely twisted and full of injustice!

          When looking at these illogical and unjust details, as well as factoring in the absurdity of a talking snake, what we have here looks like nothing more than ancient mythology, not much different from other ancient creation myths.

 

Hating Enemies

 

            Psalm 139 is a very popular psalm, used both for inner searching (Psalm 139:23-24) and for supporting the pro-life movement (Psalm 139:13-14). However, in this very psalm there are verses that Christians virtually always ignore. The psalmist David declared, "Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies" (Psalm 139:21-22). How can such immense hatred be inspired by a loving and compassionate God? Can this attitude come from the same God as in the words attributed to Jesus, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44)? Should we love our enemies, as Jesus supposedly commanded, or hate our enemies, as David was supposedly inspired to do?

 

Chauvinism

            "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7).

            There we see values set on people, and their values are based on their age brackets. As if that wasn't enough, in every one of those age brackets, the males are valued higher than the females! There is no reasonable basis for this chauvinism.

            Many who quote what are referred to as the Ten Commandments list the tenth one as, "Thou shalt not covet." However, there is more to it than that; it says, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet they neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's" (Exodus 20:17). Here we see that the wife is nothing more than the possession of the husband! The reason a man is not to covet her is not because her value as an individual, but because she is owned by a man and listed among that man's other belongings (house, wife, manservant, maidservant, ox, ass, anything else)! Again, the chauvinism shines through.

            In Leviticus we read, "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days" (Lev 12:2), but "if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks" (Lev 12:5). So, according to the Bible, not only is a woman rendered "unclean" just because of giving birth to a child, but she is unclean twice as long if the baby is a girl! This obviously represents a male chauvinistic viewpoint.

            Now let's revisit a passage mentioned under "Rape and Forced Marriage": "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Again, the victim of rape is required by law to be married to her rapist! This is basically a "you break it, you buy it" policy. This treatment of women as property is another example of chauvinism!

            This chauvinism goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. In the second creation account, "God formed man" (Genesis 2:7), then decided to make a "help meet for him" (Gen 2:18), then "God formed every beast" (Gen 2:19), but "for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" among the animals (Gen 2:20), so then God took a rib from Adam and "made he a woman, and brought her unto the man" (Gen 20:21-22). Basically, the woman was just a helper for the man, but not only that, she was an afterthought when the animals were not found suitable!

            Under "Rape and Forced Marriage" I mentioned how Lot was considered "just" and "righteous" (II Peter 2:6-8), even though he offered to throw his daughters out for a mob to rape and abuse (Genesis 19:8). It's easy to see how Lot's offer was cruel and unjust. However, to a culture that valued men over women, Lot may very well have been thought to have done the right thing! We now know better, though.

            We also read, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands" (Eph 5:22; Col 3:18). In response, some point out that we also read, "Husbands, love your wives" (Eph 5:25; Col 3:19). While it is indeed good for husbands to love their wives, that still doesn't change the fact that the woman is said to have a subservient role.

We are told, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in church" (I Cor 14:34-35). Some then suggest that the reference to "every woman that prayeth or prophesieth" (I Cor 11:5) means that women did not have to remain silent. However, that last quote actually doesn't specify if it is referring to being in public or private. Either way, it follows the statement that "the head of the woman is the man" (I Cor 11:3), thus establishing a subservient role. And, if it was meant to refer to praying and prophesying in public, then it simply contradicts the notion that "women keep silence" (I Cor 14:34).

            In addition we read, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (I Timothy 2:11-12). Some respond by suggesting that the Greek words for "woman" and "man" can also be translated "wife" and "husband." This is in fact true, and the words are used either way throughout the New Testament. But what does it really accomplish here? Even if the passage in question was meant to refer to wives and husbands specifically rather than to women and men in general, it still places the wives in a subservient role.

            Following those last verses there we read, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (I Tim 2:13-14). So, we're back to the creation order, as I had mentioned previously, but we also see the woman's subservience being due to the fact that Eve was deceived rather than Adam. Now, the point here seems to be that Eve's deception is evidence that women are not as intelligent as men. However, not only is it unjust to punish all women for one woman's error, but there's another underlying problem here. Based specifically on this perspective, if Eve was deceived and Adam wasn't, and yet they both sinned, then the logical conclusion would be that Eve made an honest mistake and Adam was being willfully defiant. Now then, which would be ethically wrong, making an honest mistake or being willfully defiant?

Some also point to the statement, "There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). This, however, is said in reference to their standing as "children of God" (Gal 3:26), and doesn't specify that it pertains to the earthly relationship between men and women. If it is meant that way, though, then it contradicts the passages teaching subservience.

When faced with the New Testament references above, Christians often respond that it's just a matter of men and women having different roles, not that they are actually unequal. However, not only does that ignore the chauvinistic Old Testament verses mentioned above, but it is also just plain illogical. If women are forbidden to have roles that men can have simply on the basis of gender, with no regard for each individual's abilities, then that is not equality, no matter how much one may be in denial about it.

At any rate, we see from multiple texts here how the Bible treats women as having less value than men, as being property of men, and that women are to have a subservient role. This is clearly male chauvinism, and it is unjust.

 

Homosexuality

            A really hot topic in our modern era is that of homosexuality, and from what we see in the Bible, it's been an issue for a long time. We read, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (Leviticus 20:13). This is often cited in an effort to prove that homosexuality is something terrible, an "abomination."

            But let's look at another passage: "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you" (Lev 11:10-12). Shellfish fall into this category, the consumption of which this passage calls an "abomination," not once, not twice, not three times, but four times! If you've eaten shrimp, then you have surely committed an "abomination" according to this!

            Anyway, even the New Testament condemns homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27). But really, now, how are consensual homosexual partners harming anyone? What homosexual has ever done anything to you? If two people care for each other and agree to be together, how is it wrong just because they are the same gender, while it is at the same time Biblically acceptable for men to force themselves on females (refer back to the "Rape and Forced Marriage" topic)? Why is homosexuality so taboo when eating shrimp is entirely acceptable now, even though it is also called an "abomination" in the Bible? Why is a consensual relationship between those of the same gender so terrible and murdering infants is completely ok (refer back to the "Delightfully Murdering Infants" topic)? Clearly, there is some twisted logic there!

               

The Lake of Fire

            The Bible says that "the beast" and "false prophet" will be "cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (Rev 19:20), and that "the devil" will also be "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone" and that they "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Rev 20:10). After that we read that "death and hell" and "whosoever was not found written in the book of life" will be "cast into the lake of fire," which it also calls "the second death" (Rev 20:14-15). Though it doesn't specify here, one would assume that this implies that everyone thrown into this lake of fire would also be tortured forever, just like it says will happen to the beast, false prophet and devil. Granted, Revelation is highly symbolic, so one could argue that this is not meant literally, especially given the reference to a "second death." For the sake of this writing, though, I will treat it literally, as traditional Christians tend to do.

            As a side note, many confuse "hell" with the eternal "lake of fire." However, as can be seen from the statement that "hell" will be "cast into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14), they are technically not the same thing in the Bible. "Hell" here is the Greek term "Hades," which was used for the grave, the nether world, the realm of the dead. But, since most people think of "Hell" as the lake of fire, from here on out that will be what I am referring to when I use the capitalized word "Hell" in quotes. So, let's move on and take a closer look at the concept of eternal torture and what the Bible has to say about "Hell."

            To hear Christians talk, "Hell" is one of the most important topics in Christianity. Indeed, what we supposedly need saving from is "Hell." Yet, if "Hell" is such a hot topic (pun intended), and burning eternally is the final punishment for the wicked, then why is the concept of the lake of fire completely absent from the Old Testament? Sure, the word "hell" is found in the KJV Old Testament, but it is the Hebrew word "Sheol," which means the grave, the underworld, the abode of the dead, a pit. Though there are several places where the Old Testament refers to "fire" symbolically, there is no place in it that says anything about eternal torture in fire (when preachers use Old Testament verses to prove "Hell," a quick look at the context always reveals that they mean something else).

In the Old Testament, the punishment for wickedness is said to be death (Eze 3:18-19; 18:20,24; 33:8-14; Psalm 37:20; Prov 2:22). Beyond that, Isaiah says, "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise" (Isa 26:14). Daniel contradicts that by saying, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan 12:2), but though it doesn't fit with most of what we see in the Old Testament, even this verse doesn't say anything about torture.

There is a significant Old Testament verse to mention, though. Jeremiah says, "Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter" (Jer 19:6). In this verse, "The valley of the son of Hinnom" in Hebrew is "gay ben Hinnom," or "gay Hinnom" ("The valley of Hinnom") for short, and is the basis of a later Greek word "Gehenna" that referred to a valley south of Jerusalem where they reportedly burned trash, dead animals and at times the corpses of executed criminals. This "Gehenna" is translated "hell" in the New Testament.

So, for clarification, there are two Greek words commonly translated "hell" in the New Testament. "Hades," as mentioned previously, refers to the grave or the netherworld. "Gehenna," on the other hand, was the city dump where refuse was burned. (The Greek word "tartaroo" is also translated "hell," but it's only used once in the Bible and its meaning is comparable to "Hades.") Now let's look at a few uses of "Gehenna."

When we read, "Whosever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matt 5:22), that "hell fire" is referring to the burning dump south of Jerusalem. So is the statement, "It is profitable for thee that one of thy members (body parts) should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (Matt 5:29-30). When we read, "Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell" (Luke 12:5), that is again using the burning city dump for imagery.

            In addition we read, "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:43-44). This is an often cited passage about "Hell," but let's dig deeper. Not only is this using the imagery of "Gehenna" discussed above, but it is based on an Old Testament quote that says, "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched" (Isaiah 66:24).  What is being talked about here is clearly not eternal torture, but simply mounting corpses. The worm not dying out is meant in reference to constantly having rotting corpses to eat on. Whatever "fire" may be referring to here, it is clearly not depicting the "Hell" that Christianity teaches.

Again, if "Hell" was such an important topic, then why would God avoid making mention of it throughout the entire Old Testament? Why repeatedly warn of death as punishment if eternal torture was really the punishment? With the complete absence of "Hell" in the Old Testament, and the idea growing out of the imagery of a burning city dump south of Jerusalem called the Valley of Hinnom in the New Testament, isn't it quite clear that "Hell" is merely a doctrine that evolved over time?

            Beyond that, what about the ethics of "Hell"? How can justice be served by inflicting infinite torture as punishment for finite infractions? How is being burned forever a befitting discipline for mere mortals? What loving father would ever do such a thing? Would any good judge ever issue such an unfair sentence?

            Jesus supposedly said that "whosever believeth" in God's "only begotten Son" will "have everlasting life," and that "he that believeth not is condemned" (John 3:16,18). In Christian theology, that condemnation is "Hell." However, what about all the people who die having never heard about Jesus? What about people raised in different cultures far removed from Christianity, those who are indoctrinated with other views (through no fault of their own) to the point that that they cannot believe Christianity when presented with it? What about the many, many people throughout the ages who simply never had the opportunity to believe in Jesus?

Some Christians try to weasel out of that dilemma by suggesting that God is just and will deal fairly with those other people. They may even cite the judgment based on deeds that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 25:31-46. While that may seem to be a noble thought, it is flat-out contradicted by the very quote from Jesus listed above, that "he that believeth not is condemned" (John 3:18). If one doesn't believe, then he's condemned, with no recourse. Besides, there are other logical problems with this argument. Since it indicates that belief in Jesus really isn't necessary for salvation, then what's the point in evangelizing and sending out missionaries? That's commanded in the Bible, of course, but it would be rather pointless if it was true that God would judge everyone justly anyway and that believing in Jesus really isn't necessary for salvation!

            In addition, what about other people, such as myself, who know the story of Jesus quite well but study Christianity and honestly conclude that it is without merit? With regard to us, as well as the aforementioned people who never heard of Jesus or who were already indoctrinated with another religious view, how could a loving God condemn such people to eternal agony when God himself has refused to show himself? If the all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God of evangelical Christianity existed and wanted to have a relationship with every person, then there would be no question that he is real and Christianity is true because he would make it clear! Yet the majority of people in the world have not been convinced of such. Where is this Christian God who is supposedly reaching out to everyone?

            Another common Christian response is to bring up the quote, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Thus, it is argued, nobody has an excuse for not knowing, because "the creation" around us is proof. But is it really? If this verse was true and the natural world we see clearly depicted the Christian God, then everyone who looks at nature would automatically be convinced of the Christian God! Yet, throughout the world there are varying cultures with different religious views, and many of those people look at the exact same nature and see evidence of their gods! And other people look at nature and see no evidence of any god at all! How could this be if "creation" was so clear regarding the Christian God? Obviously, this argument from "creation" is simply false.

            Think about this. You were raised in a Christian culture that convinced you that Christianity is true, but in the same way people raised in a Muslim culture are convinced that Islam is true, and people raised in a Hindu culture are convinced that Hinduism is true, and so on and so forth. The fact is that people's religious beliefs are primarily dependent upon demographics instead of logic, reason and indisputable evidence.

            You cannot believe Islam to be true because you were programmed to believe Christianity. But the opposite is also true: Those who are programmed to believe Islam simply cannot believe Christianity. Put yourself in their shoes. What if you had been raised and indoctrinated with Islam, and therefore you could not believe Christianity? That would be no fault of your own; it would simply be the result of being raised in that culture. Would it then be fair to torture you in "Hell" forever and ever and ever, with no mercy and no relief, simply because you did not believe something that you had no ability to believe? Do you not see the absurdity and injustice in that? Do you really believe that a righteous, loving God would do that to his creation?

            You've heard about "cruel and unusual punishment." Indeed, when someone commits a crime, we expect them to be punished, but we expect the punishment to be in accordance with the crime. However, how could any criminal deserve being tortured forever and ever and ever? We are mere mortals with a very limited life-span, so how could anything one does be worthy of unending agony? Such torture would be "cruel and unusual punishment"! And, again, the idea of issuing such punishment for a lack of belief by those who can't believe is even more problematic.

            Clearly, any God who would torture people like that would have to be sadistic and unjust, because only a sadistic monster could be so cruel! To call any such God "good" is ridiculous, and is an insult to all that is good.

            Given that the unjust nature of the doctrine of "Hell" is incompatible with the idea of a loving and just God, and given the way the Christian doctrine of "Hell" evolved out of the imagery of a burning city dump outside Jerusalem, it becomes quite clear that "Hell" is not something revealed by God, but merely a morbid myth that developed over time and became useful for scaring people throughout the ages.

 

Suffering

            Most Christians claim that God is all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. Yet, consider the countless children and other innocent people who suffer with disease and starvation every day. How is that fair and just?

            The typical Christian response is to refer to "The Fall" and claim that Adam and Eve's sin is what is responsible for this suffering. However, this argument fails miserably. First, as has been demonstrated in my previous comments regarding "The Fall," the curse God issued in that story is unjust. Second, an all-knowing God would have known before creating the world that this unfair suffering would go on, yet we are to believe that he proceeded with creation anyway. This makes God responsible for such suffering.

            An all-loving God would have the desire to help those afflicted with such unfair suffering, and an all-powerful God would have the ability to do something about it, yet countless people still suffer unfairly even to this day. How could an all-loving God turn a blind eye to such suffering? How could an all-powerful God refuse to help innocent little children? Clearly, the fact that such suffering goes on is an indication that God doesn't care, doesn't have the power to help or doesn't know about the suffering. Or perhaps the Christian God simply doesn't exist outside of the imaginations of the believers!

 

Conclusion from the Cruelties and Injustices

            How can Christians condemn the violence and injustice of people of other faiths and turn a blind eye to the violence and injustice condoned and even commanded in the Bible? Would a loving God command or even condone such cruelties and injustice? If one argues that it was OK for people in the Old Testament to believe that the cruel things they did was OK just because they saw it as condoned or commanded by the God they believe in, then what grounds do you have to bash Muslims for doing cruel things that they think is OK because they see it as condoned or commanded by the God they believe in?

            Do the cruel and unjust things condoned or commanded in the Bible really merit being in a "divine" book that we are supposed to derive our morality from? Would a good God that Christians claim to believe in be behind such vile unfairness? Would a just and loving God sadistically torture people for eternity because this God himself did nothing to make himself known to them?

In all honesty, I am now of the impression that the alleged divine allowances and commands for cruelties are more the making of the Israelites in an attempt to justify their brutal actions than real revelations from an allegedly compassionate God. In addition, the unfair actions of God himself seem to be nothing more than ancient people projecting their own vicious tribal mentality onto the deity they invented and worshipped. All this injustice simply cannot be coming from a just, upright, fair and loving God.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

5. Divine Deception: The Bible depicts God as being deceptive in a few places.

 

5.)  And the problem is?

 

So, you admit that God deceives? Why in the world would you trust someone whom you know to be a deceiver? For all you know, he could be deceiving you. Besides, elsewhere you have said that God doesn't lie, so it's a bit strange to see you so nonchalant here. Anyway, here is what I've written on this subject:

 

DIVINE DECEPTION

            We are told that "God cannot lie" (Titus 1:2), and we are to "let God be true, but every man the liar" (Romans 3:4). We are also told that it is the "devil" who "is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44). Indeed, Christians maintain that God is fully truthful and that there is no deception in him, while Satan is the one who deceives. But let's look at a few other things that the Bible has to say.

 

The Strong Delusion

            The Bible says, "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" (II Thesselonians 2:11). Wait, what was that again? God is sending delusion, a lie for people to believe? It looks like God can lie after all!

            Some point out that this delusion is supposed to be sent as a form of punishment for nonbelievers, but that still doesn't change the fact that God here is spreading a lie. If God really wanted all to be saved, as most Christians believe, then why would he send some of them a lie instead of making himself abundantly clear to them?

 

Lying Spirit

            "And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee" (I Kings 22:20-23).

            Here God asks for someone to deceive Ahab, and sends a "lying spirit"! Some suggest that this isn't a problem because it's not God himself doing the lying. However, this account clearly depicts God as looking for someone to be deceptive and grants permission for the spirit to spread lies. As such, God is directly responsible for the lying here. So much for God being a God of truth, in whom is no deception!

 

The Fall (Revisited)

             In the "Cruelties and Injustices" section I addressed unjust aspects of "The Fall," but now I'd like to address the issue of lying in this story. Christians say that the serpent lied, but did he really? Here is what he said: "Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:4-5). So, what then proceeded to happen after they ate the fruit? "The eyes of both of them were opened" (Gen 3:7), just as the serpent said. God then proclaimed, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen 3:22), just as the serpent had said would happen. And the man and woman did not die, just like the serpent said; they went on living, and Adam is specifically said to have lived 930 years (Gen 5:5)! So, according to this story, the serpent did not lie.

            Continuing with that point (and this may come as a surprise), let's take a look at what God said in the story: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen 2:17). So, is that what proceeded to happen? As we just saw, of course not! Their punishments were pain in childbirth and difficulty working the ground (Gen 3:16-19), as well as being banished from the garden (Gen 3:22-24). They were not put to death, but rather lived on for hundreds of years (Gen 5:5)! Thus, in the story it is actually God who lied!

Christians often assert that Adam and Eve died "spiritually" when they sinned. However, God did not say that they would die spiritually; he just said they would die. The fact is that "spiritual death" is not a concept found in the Old Testament; it is Pauline Theology from the New Testament being forced onto an ancient text that said nothing of the sort. Thus, this suggestion fails.

Another response is that Adam and Eve's bodies started the process of dying when they sinned, but once again the text does not say that. In fact, the very reason they were banished from the garden was to keep them from eating from the "tree of life" and living forever (Gen 3:22). If the "tree of life" imparted eternal life, then what would be the point in putting it in the garden to begin with if Adam and Eve were initially created to be immortal? The inclusion of the "tree of life" implies that they were mortal to begin with. As such, eventual death couldn't be the punishment if they would have eventually died anyway. Therefore, this suggestion also fails.

Simply put, we are left with a story in which God lied to the man and woman, and the serpent (whom Christians assume to be Satan, even though the text says nothing of the sort) told the truth! This was a big shock to me when I realized what the story was really saying here, considering how many times I had read and heard this story and never noticed it (due to being indoctrinated on how to understand it).

 

Conclusion from Divine Deception

            How can an allegedly good and true God be behind lies and deception? Clearly, the Bible itself challenges the Christian concept of God here. I see no reason to trust such a God.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

6. Absurdities: There are things in the Bible that clearly don't line up with reality.

 

6.)  Isn't that to be expected when you are dealing with the supernatural?

 

There are also non-supernatural things in the Bible that are patently absurd. Here is what I've written on this subject:

 

ABSURDITIES

            I have already referred to the absurdity of a talking snake as well as the absurdity of punishing people for not believing something that they have no ability to believe. Now I want to take a more direct look at some other absurdities in the Bible.

 

The Flat Earth

            Ancient cultures believed that Earth is flat and that the sun, moon and stars were bright dots on a dome over Earth. Now, of course, we know that such a concept is absurd. The Earth is a sphere that rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, that the sun and stars are massive balls of fire, that the sun is just the star that Earth is closest to, and that the moon revolves around Earth.

            If the Biblical authors were inspired by an all-knowing God who created the universe, we would expect the correct view of the universe to be reflected in the Bible. After all, this God would not inspire them to write things that are wrong, would he? With this in mind, let's take a look at what the Bible has to say on the matter.

            In the very first chapter of the Bible we read, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7). Many Christians assume this "firmament" is referring to the atmosphere, but that is not what it is saying. The Hebrew word is "raqiya" and refers to a solid surface. In other words, the firmament is firm (to support waters above it). Some versions of the Bible accurately translate the term as "dome" (NRSV, CEV) or "vault" (NIV 2011). This fits with the ancient cultures' belief of a flat Earth, but it is not consistent with what we now know from science.

            Going on we read, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years" (Gen 1:14). Here we have the sun, moon and stars being hung in the firmament/dome, which is consistent with the ancient flat Earth belief that the sun, moon and stars are dots on a dome, but it is not consistent with what we now know from science.

            We read from a prophetic vision, "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs" (Revelation 6:13). So, the stars can fall to Earth like figs falling from a tree? Later the vision proclaims that a "third part of the stars of heaven" are "cast" down "to the earth" (Rev 12:4). From the ancient flat Earth perspective that the starts were just dots hanging from a dome, this prophecy would be believable. However, knowing that stars are enormous balls of fire and that the Earth would disintegrate before coming into contact with even one star, this prophecy is clearly absurd. Even Jesus espoused this misunderstanding when he said that "the stars shall fall from heaven" (Matt 24:29)!

            When Jesus was being tempted by the devil, we read, "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world" (Matt 4:8). So, every kingdom of the world could be seen from "an exceeding high mountain"? This would be believable from the flat Earth perspective, but we now know that Earth is a sphere and therefore it would be impossible to see the whole surface of Earth from any point. Some try to argue that this was a vision, but the text does not give any such indication. In fact, if one insists on interpreting this as a vision, the only point at which it would make sense would be where it says the devil "sheweth him" (in that he showed him a vision), but that comes after the devil supposedly "taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain." But if it was merely a vision, then what would be the point in going up on a high mountain? Clearly, the narrative here does not support the suggestion that it was just a vision. The story is saying that all the kingdoms of Earth can be viewed from a very high mountain, but we now know that this is not true.

            Daniel 4 tells of King Nebuchadnezzar having a dream, and when describing it the king said, "I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me.... Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth" (Dan 4:2,10-11). Here we see the idea of a tree being so tall that it was visible over the whole Earth, in a vision reportedly from God! Lest one suggest that the Bible is only presenting this as the king's claim, let me point out that the remainder of Daniel 4 tells of the dream being interpreted by Daniel and then coming true, so the clear implication is that this was indeed a vision from God. And that dream from God is based on the ancient flat Earth belief, which we now know is false!

            Some Christians bring up Isaiah's reference to "the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22), as though it confirms reality. Unfortunately for them, though, Earth is not a circle, it is a sphere. In response, they say that from outer space the Earth looks like a circle. However, Isaiah does not say that Earth merely looks like a circle from outer space, it calls Earth a circle. The Hebrew word used is "chuwg," which means circle or compass (to encircle or draw a circle), and it can also mean a vaulted circle. In other words, the image here is a disc shape, a flat circle, possibly with a dome over it. This fits in with the ancient view of a flat Earth, but we now know that Earth is a sphere!

            Some also argue that Hebrew didn't have a word for "sphere," and therefore "circle" was their best approximation. However, this has a couple flaws. First, languages evolve to incorporate concepts as they arise. Therefore, if the Hebrews had believed that the earth was a sphere, then they would have come up with a way to convey that concept in their language. Second, Hebrew does have a word for "ball," which Isaiah used when he said that God will "toss thee like a ball" (Isa 22:18). If Isaiah had wanted to convey the idea of a spherical Earth, then "ball" would have been a better word choice than "circle"!

As such, it is obvious that the Christian claim that Isaiah confirmed the Earth's spherical shape is wrong. Isaiah presents the Earth as being a circle, which is a flat disc, and no amount of wishful thinking can change that.

In fact, we read that "the Lord" spoke (Job 38:1) of taking "hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it" (Job 38:13). From the flat Earth perspective, one could believe this, but a spherical Earth has no "ends" to grab hold of, and we know that there is no edge of the Earth from which people can fall off of the planet.

We also read, "The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved" (Psalm 93:1), and "the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved" (Psalm 96:10). Elsewhere a psalm of David says, "The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved" (I Chron 16:30). The idea being presented here is that the Earth is in a firm location and cannot be moved, which is consistent with ancient flat Earth belief, but we now know that the Earth is constantly rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun.

In Ecclesiastes we are told, "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose" (Ecclesiastes 1:5). Elsewhere we read about "the sun," that its "going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it" (Psalm 19:4,6). These clearly depict the sun going on a circuit around the Earth. Similarly we read, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.... So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" (Joshua 10:13). This alleged miracle is also clearly written from the perspective that the sun is a bright dot that goes around the Earth.

Some argue that these passages were merely written the way things appear to us as humans, as if that somehow solves the problem. Of course they are written the way things look to our eyes, because they were written by mere mortal humans, just like us! They just didn't have the advances in knowledge that we have to show that reality is different from how it appears to the naked eye. Had these passages really been inspired by an all-knowing Creator, then he would have known better! And, with regard to the sun standing still, if in fact the Earth stopped rotating, then not only would there likely have been serious physical consequences for the planet, but such an event would have been observed by people of all cultures. Yet the people of other contemporary cultures, some of whom wrote extensively about astronomical observances, are completely silent about this supposed event.

Some also point out that even today we use the metaphors "sunrise" and "sunset," and therefore the Biblical depiction of the sun is warranted. However, the texts already cited mention not only the sun rising and setting from our perspective, but also that the sun "hasteth back to his place where he arose" (Ecc 1:5) and travels a "circuit unto the ends of" the earth (Psalm 19:6). This clearly depicts the sun going around Earth, which is simply not true. In addition, the very terms "sunrise" and "sunset" probably have their origin in the ancient concept of the sun going around the Earth, and have merely become metaphors now that we know better. Our modern literature thoroughly documents the fact that Earth rotates and revolves around the sun, but the ancients really believed that the sun physically moved around the earth. There is nothing in the Bible or cultures from which the Bible came that gives any indication that the Biblical references to the sun rising and setting were meant metaphorically. Instead, they clearly depict the sun going around Earth.

At any rate, there is nothing in the Bible that presents the Earth as the sphere revolving around the sun, as we now know to be true. On the other hand, the Bible consistently indicates that its authors believed in a flawed ancient concept of a flat Earth vaulted by a dome, and that the sun, moon and stars are just bright dots moving around on the dome. So much for the Bible being inspired by the all-knowing Creator of the cosmos!

 

Demon / Devil Possession

            There is a medical condition known as an epileptic seizure, with which convulsions are often associated. Some seizures are mild and only result in momentarily blacking out, but the convulsive type is dramatic and involves wild thrashing movement. A person having convulsions can be very difficult to restrain and can be dangerous to both himself and those around him. Medical science has shown that seizures are caused by electrical abnormalities in the brain. It is a purely physical condition, and now we seek medical help for those who have it. In ancient times, however, this was not understood, and those suffering from epileptic convulsions were often considered demon-possessed. So, what does the Bible have to say about it?       

            We read about a man coming to Jesus and saying, "Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is a lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water" (Matthew 17:15). This "lunatic" behavior was likely an epileptic seizure, and is even translated in some Bibles as "seizures" (NIV, NLT) or "epileptic" (ESV). Yet we are told, "Jesus rebuked the devil (demon); and he departed out of him" (Matt 17:18).

            Another account tells of a man saying, "Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. And, lo, a spirit taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out; and it teareth him that he foameth again, and bruising him hardly departeth from him" (Luke 9:38-39). This also appears to be referring to seizures, and in fact some newer Bibles use the term "convulsion(s)" (NIV, NASB, NLT). Then we are told, "And as he was yet a coming, the devil (demon) threw him down, and tare him" (Luke 9:42), again portraying a convulsion. Yet we are told, "Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child" (Luke 9:42).

            We also read, "And when he (Jesus) was come to the other side into the country of Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils (demons), coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way" (Matthew 8:28). Though it is less clear than the previous two passages, this one could also be referring to epileptic seizures. The "exceeding fierce" nature of their actions could be a reference to the fierceness of convulsions. At any rate, Jesus then cast demons out of him (Matt 8:32).

            So, the first two passages examined here clearly misrepresent convulsions as demon-possession, just like the misunderstanding that ancients had. The third passage referenced here could be another example of that same misunderstanding. And we see Jesus, supposedly the Son of God Almighty, playing right into that misunderstanding by casting demons out of people suffering from a physical ailment! How is that for being absurd?

 

The Tower of Babel

            In Genesis we read about some people at Shinar (Gen 11:1-3) who decided, "Let us build a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth" (Gen 11:4). Then we are told that God "came down to see the city and the tower" (Gen 11:5). Now, if God was omnipresent, as Christians assert, then why would he have to come down to see the city and tower? This sounds like it was written with the common ancient mindset of gods being like glorified men. But anyway, let's go on.

            Then God said, "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech" (Gen 11:6-7). Then the people were scattered, and the tower was called "Babel" (which means "confusion") because the languages were confused (Gen 11:8-9).

            So, God was concerned about people building a city and a tower because "nothing will be restrained from them"? In light of our modern metropolises and skyscrapers, which don't seem to scare God in the slightest, why would God be afraid of a city and tower back then that could not have compared in the least to what we have now? We in modern times have accomplished much, much more than such an early civilization could have even dreamed of accomplishing, yet their abilities were a concern to God while ours apparently are not?

            Now, some point to the people saying that they didn't want to "be scattered abroad" (Gen 11:4), and then the statement that God did "scatter them abroad" (Gen 11:9), and suggest that the problem was that the people didn't want to spread out and fill the earth, while now in our time the earth is filled. However, the text does not say that that's what God's concern was, it specifically has God expressing concern that "now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do" (Gen 11:6). In other words, "nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them" (NIV). This is clearly referring to their capabilities as a people coordinating together. Yet now in our time people coordinate together to build enormous skyscrapers, airplanes to take to the sky, space shuttles that go into orbit around the earth, and we have even put men on the moon! Is God no longer scared by our capabilities, even though they far surpass those of an ancient community that did trouble God?

            Clearly, the story of the Tower of Babel is a bit absurd.

 

Jacob and His Flocks

            Jacob requested permission for "removing from" Laban's flocks "all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats" for his pay (Genesis 30:32). He said that later on Laban could check and that every goat found to be in Jacob's possession "that is not speckled and spotted" and every sheep that is not "brown" will "be counted stolen" (Gen 30:33). Laban agreed, separated the flocks and distanced himself from Jacob (Gen 30:34-36).

What supposedly happened next is quite interesting, to say the least. In order to not miss anything, I'll quote the whole scene: "And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chestnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle. And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's. And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses" (Genesis 30:37-43).

So, this is how Jacob became prosperous? According to the Bible story here, an animal's physical appearance can be altered by simply placing strips of wood in watering troughs or removing them whenever the animal's mother was in heat. In modern times, we now know that physical characteristics are determined by genetics, not by strips of wood. Yet to ancient superstitious people, it could be believed that the strips of wood could have such an effect, and that is apparently what the author of this story thought.

Some point to where Jacob has a dream which implies God had blessed him because of his troubles with Laban (Genesis 31:10-13). The suggestion is that God caused the results that Jacob wanted despite his superstition. Yet, there are some difficulties with that argument. First, God does not say that Jacob was being superstitious and that his superstition had nothing to do with the results. Second, the real issue is the narration of the story in chapter 30, because if the author had meant to portray the story as though Jacob's superstition did not affect the outcome, then why would it be worded the way it was? After describing Jacob's superstitious actions, it says, "So the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's" (Gen 30:42). That "so" implies that Jacob's actions did cause the results.  As such, the narrative portrays Jacob's superstition in a positive light, as being effective in changing the physical characteristics of the flocks.

So, even when Genesis 31:10-13 is factored in, the original account in chapter 30 does not lend itself to the argument that God was merely prospering Jacob in spite of his superstition. Of course, one could argue that such was the case, but that the author didn't think about that when writing it out. However, how could one hold that view and still maintain that the text was divinely inspired?

 

Old vs. New Testaments

            In the "Cruelties and Injustices" section we saw a lot of mean and unfair things advocated by the God of the Bible. Most of those things are in the Old Testament, and Christians are often quick to point out that distinction and then insist that the New Testament gives us a better way.

            However, is that really a logical point? Isn't the whole Bible supposed to be God's Word? Isn't the God of the New Testament supposed to be the same God as that of the Old Testament? Don't Christians claim to worship the God of both the New and Old Testaments? Didn't this God supposedly say, "I change not" (Malachi 3:6)?

            Christians staunchly claim to believe in absolute and unchanging morality. Yet, how is morality unchanging if cruel things that are wrong now were not wrong in Old Testament times? To suggest that some things were acceptable in one place and time but not another is to actually believe in relative morality!

            Beyond that, in Hebrews we are told that Jesus is "the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second" (Heb 8:6-7). Here we have a Biblical admission that the first covenant was not without fault! Why would a perfect God implement a faulty covenant? Why would an all-knowing God have to improve his plan? How can an unchanging God change his dealing with mankind?

            Some point to the next verse saying, "For finding fault with them" (Heb 8:8), and suggest that the fault was with the people rather than God's covenant. However, the text clearly indicates that the "first covenant" itself was not "faultless" (Heb 8:7). Besides, an all-knowing God would inevitably know what would become of the covenant before establishing it, so how could such a God establish a faulty covenant?

            In addition, Genesis claims that when the first covenant was instituted with Abraham, God called it "an everlasting covenant" (Gen 17:7)! As such, how is it that we read in Hebrews, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13)? How does an "everlasting covenant" decay and "vanish away"? Did an all-knowing and unchanging God not know that he would have to change his covenant?

            On the other hand, Jesus allegedly said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). Despite the fact that here Jesus claimed that he didn't come to abolish the Old Testament law, Christians treat much of that very law as though it is abolished. They even sometimes point to that statement's claim that Jesus fulfilled the law, but they treat that alleged fulfillment as though it is an abolishment, which Jesus himself here clearly said was not the case!

            Not only are these details inconsistent, but the whole concept of an Old Testament versus a New Testament is a bit absurd. In an attempt to weasel out of this problem, Christians often claim that God has given "progressive revelation." In other words, God's plan was always the same, but he only revealed that plan in increments. However, let me emphasize once again that God supposedly said that the first "covenant" was "everlasting" (Gen 17:7). If he had known that that was not true (as would an all-knowing God already planning to eventually replace the covenant), then he was lying. In reality, though, this whole scenario appears to be nothing more than evolving religion, with Christianity being carelessly tacked onto a Jewish heritage.

The more cruel aspects of the Old Testament appear to have come from an ancient brutal tribal mentality. The New Testament's mostly nicer tone appears to have been the result of the progression to larger communities that needed to work together. That is not a matter of "progressive revelation," it is a matter of evolving religion.

 

Conclusion from Absurdities

            Here we have looked at a few absurdities in the Bible, and there are more. Realistically speaking, of course, we know that writings inspired by an all-knowing God would not espouse absurdities, would they? Clearly, this is yet one more area in which Biblical authority is undermined.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

7. Divine Inspiration: There are things stated in the Bible that undermine the Christian claim that the whole Bible is divinely inspired.

 

7.)   I'm sure you believe so.  I simply disagree.  

 

And you're simply wrong. Here is what I've written on this issue:

 

DIVINE INSPIRATION

            I have made several references to the issue of "divine inspiration." Here I would like to take a closer look at the concept. Some Christians believe that God Almighty dictated every word of the Bible. Others insist that God dictated the content, while allowing the authors to express it in their own styles. Either way, the doctrine of "divine inspiration" suggests that the message itself has come directly from an omniscient God.

            However, does this belief have any validity? Is it even claimed by the authors of the books in the Bible that they were divinely inspired throughout the writing process? Of course, anyone could claim to be divinely inspired, so such a claim would not be proof that it is true. However, if the authors themselves did not consider their own writings to be divinely inspired, wouldn't that fact itself say something?

            Ironically, while most of the books of the Bible do contain quotations that are attributed to God (especially the "prophetic" and "law" books), the Bible books are otherwise devoid of claiming divine inspiration on themselves. Throughout all the narrated stories, psalms of praise, and the New Testament doctrinal teachings, there is a stunning silence about being inspired by God. With this in mind, let's take a look at some interesting statements that do bear on the issue of divine inspiration.

 

The Gospel of Luke

            Luke opens with the following introduction: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)

Here the author is giving his reason for writing his account. He claims that he himself "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first," therefore making him personally qualified "to write" an account "in order" to the "most excellent Theophilus," in order that he "mightest know the certainty of these things" which he was "instructed" in.

Note that, in the midst of taking credit for investigating and writing the account himself, the author never once mentions that the information is coming from God. He cites his own abilities as sufficient for doing the writing! This implies that the author did not consider his account to be divine. He considered himself, with the help of "eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word," to be the source of the writing.

 

Paul's Epistles

            The letters called epistles that are attributed to Paul are fairly consistent in the way that they open. Of the thirteen, nine contain a reference to his apostleship in the very first verse (Rom 1:1; I Cor 1:1; II Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; I Tim 1:1; II Tim 1:1; Tit 1:1). Of the four that do not begin with a specific reference to apostleship, one makes mention of it later in the letter (I Thessalonians 2:6), and two others allude to it with different terminology ("servants of Christ" in Philippians 1:1 and "prisoner of Christ" in Philemon 1:1). When taking into consideration the fact that Paul never once claims that his letters are divinely inspired, his consistent appeal to his apostleship is clearly meant to establish his own authority. In other words, the reason he expected his churches to adhere to what he was writing was because of his apostleship, and not because God was dictating what he was writing.

In fact, Paul twice even articulated that he was giving commands that were not from "the Lord." We read, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away" (I Corinthians 7:12), and, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" (I Cor 7:25). Interestingly, not only do these verses indicate that Paul was presenting his own views rather than something communicated by God, but the second one clearly establishes the fact that Paul simply considered himself to be a "faithful" authority for making such a "judgment."

The typical response to this problem is to suggest that Paul only meant that he wasn't quoting Jesus, whereas in the same chapter he also gives a command that is attributed to "the Lord" (I Cor 7:10). That is somewhat true in that the command there (I Cor 7:10), while not stated exactly the same way in the gospels, does represent some of the teaching attributed to Jesus. Appealing to this, though, is essentially meaningless to the matter, because we're dealing with other instances where Paul takes credit himself for the commands, appealing to his own authority. Regardless of whether or not a loose quote appears at one point, Paul's articulations (I Cor 7:12, 25) clearly indicate that his writings were not (at least not in entirety) divinely inspired.

There are a couple other interesting statements made in Paul's letters. We read, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other" (I Corinthians 1:14-16). If Paul's writing had been communicated by an omniscient God, then why didn't he know whether or not he had baptized anyone else? The fact that he couldn't recall that indicates that he was relying on his own memory, not on information given by an omniscient God.

Similarly, we read, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)" (II Corinthians 12:2). Just like the previous verse, if Paul's writing had been communicated by an omniscient God, then why didn't he know whether or not it was a real experience or just a vision? Again, this indicates that Paul was relying on his own perception, not information from an omniscient God.

There is one place in Paul's writings where he mentions divine inspiration, saying, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Timothy 3:16). It is not uncommon for this verse to be cited as proof of divine inspiration. However, there are some very important things to keep in mind.

First, at the time of this writing, the only canonized "Scripture" was the Hebrew Bible, which is the Old Testament. Several of our New Testament books had not even been written yet, so there was not a canonized New Testament (the Bible as we know it was not canonized until the fourth century AD).

Second, in the preceding verse Paul mentions that "from a child" Timothy had "known the holy scriptures" (II Timothy 3:15), and when Timothy would have been a child even fewer (if any at all) of the documents that would eventually comprise the New Testament had been written. As such, the "scripture" that Paul is referring to here does not include the New Testament or Paul's own writings. Paul is merely indicating that he believes that the Old Testament was divinely inspired.

In light of this, II Timothy 3:16 does not even claim that the entire Bible is divinely inspired. As a side note, though, even if it did claim such, the claim itself would not be proof that it is true. Along those same lines, the fact that Paul does claim that the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired does not prove that they were. As noted above, the narrated stories and psalms of praise in the Old Testament don't claim to be divinely inspired, so the concept of divine inspiration has been imposed upon it. My point here is that there are things in the Bible that are basically admitted to not being divinely inspired.

 

Peter's Epistles

            The epistles attributed to Peter also do not claim to be directly revealed by God. Just like Paul, both of Peter's epistles begin with an appeal to his apostleship (I Peter 1:1; II Peter 1:1), thus establishing his own authority.

            There is a comment, though, that often comes up in discussions about divine inspiration.  We read, "…our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures" (II Peter 3:15b-16). By drawing such a parallel between "all" of Paul's letters and the "other scriptures," one can reasonably conclude that Peter was inferring that Paul's letters are "scripture." Peter's comment, therefore, implies that he considered Paul's writings to be inspired by God (assuming that he would define "scripture" as being divinely inspired).

However, as has been shown above, Paul twice admitted that he was giving commands that were not from "the Lord" (I Cor 7:12, 25), twice admitted that he was unsure about what he was talking about (I Cor 1:14-16; II Cor 12:2), and repeatedly appealed to his own apostolic authority rather than divine inspiration (Romans 1:1; etc). As such, Peter's comment about Paul's letters seems to be imposing the concept of divine inspiration on texts that were not divinely inspired. In turn, Peter's inaccurate comment regarding Paul's writings and his appeal to his own apostolic authority rather than divine inspiration leads to the conclusion that Peter's epistles also were not divinely inspired.

 

Interpolations

            Another issue relating to divine inspiration is interpolations. An "interpolation" is an addition to the text by someone other than the original author (a forgery, in other words). Many modern Bibles have text-notes mentioning some of the variations in the existing documents. Sometimes what is found is that newer copies of Biblical documents have text in them that does not exist in older copies. It has been pretty well established that there have been interpolations into the Biblical text.

            For example, the oldest copies of Mark (the first gospel to be written) do not have Jesus' post-resurrection appearances at the end (Mark 16:9-20). This part is a forgery, not originally part of Mark, and yet it has appeared in most copies of the New Testament through the years.

            Also, the oldest copies of John do not have the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). This part is also a forgery, not originally part of John, and yet it has appeared in most copies of the New Testament through the years.

            Those are the largest of the interpolations that I am aware of, but another significant one is a Trinitarian interpolation with the statement, "…in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth..." (I John 5:7-8). Some newer translations have omitted this interpolation, but quote it in the text-notes. This forgery, though removed from the actual text of some newer translations, has appeared in most copies of the New Testament through the years.

            Those are among the most significant known interpolations into the Biblical text, but there are others. Such texts have been included in most Bibles over the years, have been held to unswervingly by many people as part of God's inspired Word, and yet they are now known to be forgeries. They were not written by the original authors. This shows that even if the Bible had been initially inspired by God, its transmission over the years has been flawed.

And that is only dealing with the known forgeries. Since the original documents no longer exist, all we have are copies from copies from copies, so it is impossible to know just how many forgeries there actually are in our current Bibles. So, how much of it can be trusted to even be what the original authors wrote?

 

Conclusion from Divine Inspiration

            So much of the Bible is written as mere narrative, with no claim of divine inspiration, and sounding like nothing more than ancient people's human attempt to write down stories, that it is hard to imagine it as being anything more than that. That is especially true when taking into consideration other issues like the ones raised in this letter.

            What, then, about the quotes that are attributed to God? When considering such drastic problems as the ones in the Bible that I have pointed out, how can we trust it even when it does claim to be reporting the direct word of God? In addition, what about works from other faiths claiming to be from God? Christians assert that the Bible is so accurate that it has to be the truth, and therefore the others must not be true, but it is clear from the issues I've raised here (and others that I haven't mentioned) that the Bible is not the accurate and consistent whole that Christians claim it is.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

I'm sure these are not adequate answers but enough to get started.

 

Stranger

 

It doesn't appear that you've put much thought into them, that's for sure. You appear to be simply regurgitating what you've been spoon-fed.

 

I do want to post the final section from my letter, which deals with some other problems in Christian thinking. Some of this won't apply to you specifically, since you come from a different theological perspective than the people whom I originally wrote it for, but most of it will apply in your case. For the sake of lurkers from different theological backgrounds than you, I'll post the whole section. Here it is:

 

OTHER ISSUES

            There are a few other issues I want to address that didn't fit into the preceding categories.

 

Freewill

            Let's consider the concept of freewill. Now, to be fair, there are some Christians who believe in predestination, and therefore this wouldn't pertain to them. There are Bible passages about predestination and there are Bible passages about human responsibility and choices, so both the predestination and freewill camps can use the Bible to support their views. At any rate, since most Christians I know believe in freewill, the comments here are directed at them.

            Consider a man who is looking for a job, so he prays for God to provide him one. Then, after searching for a while and having some interviews, he finally gets hired. Excited to have the new job, the man then thanks God for giving him the job. That's not an unusual scenario at all, but does it really make sense? Let's think about it.

            Did the Human Resources director who hired the man have freewill? Did he make the decision on his own? If he had freewill in the matter, then God did not give the man the job, God merely left it up to the HR director, and he gave the man the job. So, if freewill is true, then what is the point of praying for something like that and then praising God for something that God did not actually do, if in fact the HR director had freewill? On the other hand, if God did give the man the job, then that would mean that the HR director did not have freewill, but was instead controlled by God in the matter. If this is the case, then the doctrine of human freewill is undermined.

Simply put, these are mutually exclusive concepts, and you can't have it both ways. One cannot freely choose an act that is forced on him by God, nor can God be said to have caused something that was freely chosen by someone.

 

Prayer

            Also, what about prayer itself? The concept of one praying for himself is understandable, if the relationship between the man and his God is in view, but what about the concept of praying for others? If a woman is sick and another woman prays for her recovery, then what does that prayer actually accomplish in that particular matter? Is an all-knowing God's mind going to be changed? Would an all-loving God base his dealings with one person on whether or not another person prays for her?

Likewise, what if you were in a seriously ill condition? Would it be fair for God to refuse to help you until someone else prays for you? How is that your fault? Why should you be held responsible for another's actions? How can someone else's words change an omniscient, omnibenevolent God's dealing with you?

Similarly, what about praying for someone's "salvation"? Christians often pray for loved ones to be "saved." However, if God really wants all to be saved, as most Christians believe, then why would he wait to try to save people until other people pray for them? Why would one's potential salvation be contingent upon another's prayer? Isn't this sort of prayer a bit illogical? I mean, do you really think that you can affect an all-powerful, all-knowing God's dealings with other people?

Isn't this whole concept just a bit silly?

 

Healings

When we hear reports of healings, they are things that could happen naturally (with or without medical treatment) or else things allegedly happening too far away or with too few details given for us to be able to investigate and verify the claim. With the latter, it's easy to see why someone making up stories would do so in a way that one wouldn't likely find out the truth. With the former, we know that cancer going into remission, recovering from an illness or the alleviation of pain and discomfort can seem to be answers to prayer, but those very things can and do happen naturally (with or without medical treatment).

            Therefore, a very significant question has been proposed by skeptics: Why won't God heal amputees? Arms and legs don't naturally grow back, nor has the medical science field advanced far enough yet to be able to grow new limbs, and without surprise God doesn't heal them either! There has never been one single proven case of an amputee's lost limb coming back! Does this mean that the only healings God can perform are things that can also happen naturally or under the treatment of doctors using modern science? How does this prove that any miraculous healings happen at all? Could it be that all such healings are simply events that are more accurately attributed to nature or medical science?

            Why is it that people seek medical help for ailments and then when they recover they claim that God healed them? If it was really God healing them, then why do they bother with going to a doctor? Is God not effective enough and needs a little help from trained professionals? Or could it be that God is not really involved at all, that the supernatural aspect is just in the minds of the believers?

So, once again, why won't God heal amputees? Are the only healings that God can perform just things that can also happen naturally (with or without medical treatment)? Could it be that all we really do have are things happening naturally?

 

History

            Considering all of the problems that have been detailed in this letter so far, we are left with the obvious conclusion that the Bible is not a reliable source of history. As such, one then wonders how the Bible really stacks up with history, including other written accounts as well as what has been gleaned from archeology and science. For the most part, I have not delved into those fields enough to give a really detailed analysis. I do recognize, though, that the academic world has long since recognized that history does not support the Bible, and considering what I have uncovered in my studies of the Bible, I have no reason to doubt the conclusions of those in the academic world.

            One thing I do want to quickly address, though, is the historicity of Jesus. If I had a quarter for every time I heard a preacher or some other Christian say that the historicity of Jesus is better established than any other figure in history, then I'd have a hefty chunk of change. In fact, I used to parrot that claim myself, not knowing any better. But how does the claim stack up to reality?

            Though there were several historians who wrote during and shortly after the time in which Jesus supposedly lived, not one single one of them mentions him. If Jesus was such a remarkable figure who created quite a stir, then how could this be?

In fact, the earliest recorded mentions of Jesus come from decades after he supposedly lived, in some of the epistles. If Jesus was such a remarkable figure, then why didn't any of his followers begin writing about him until so much later?

            Of all of the earliest mentions of Jesus, none of them are from secular or rival sources. There is nothing from the first century AD that mentions Jesus outside of the religious writings, which clearly had an agenda. Again, if Jesus was such a remarkable character, why would this be?

            But wait, some would say that I've overlooked Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote late in the first century AD and mentioned Jesus in "Antiquities of the Jews" (in a passage commonly referred to as the "Testimonium Flavianum"). However, let's take a look at what he supposedly wrote: "Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities 18.3.3)

            I remember years ago being told that Josephus provided external corroboration for the historicity of Jesus, and I bought a copy of Josephus' works. However, we know that Josephus was a Jew who never did convert to Christianity, so I was left scratching my head and wondering how in the world he could have written such a praising commentary on Jesus and yet reject him as his Savior. I was not yet aware of Christian interpolations, so at the time I wrote it off as a strange anomaly.

            Modern scholarship has reasonably deduced that this passage is an interpolation. Indeed, the way Jesus is described here by saying, "If it be lawful to call him a man," is a clear allusion to the Christian concept of Jesus being divine. The assertion that "He was the Christ" is also clearly something that only a proponent of Christianity would write, and Josephus was not a Christian. If Josephus really believed that Jesus was "alive again the third day," then surely he would have converted to Christianity, yet he didn't. Also, the "ten thousand other wonderful things" is an exaggeration that one would not expect from a reputable historian.

            Thus, it is quite clear that this passage represents Christian tampering with Josephus' text. Even Christian leaders have acknowledged that Josephus could not have written this passage in its current form. Many of those Christian leaders then try to argue that only the praising parts of the passage were added by Christians, and that it is still an authentic reference to Jesus in Josephus' work. However, until an ancient copy of Josephus' works can be provided that contains an alternate version of this passage, their argument is nothing more than grasping at straws to try to find historical support for Jesus. After all, once the text is known to have been tampered with, it is simply an unreliable source.

            It should also be pointed out that Josephus was not born until after Jesus supposedly died, so even if he had written of Jesus, it would not have been a contemporary account and would have been based on handed-down (i.e., unreliable) information anyway. But, knowing that Christians altered Josephus' text, we must disregard Josephus altogether as a source of historical information on Jesus. Thus, the net effect is that we have no authentic non-religious mentions of Jesus from the entire first century AD!

            After the first century AD, there started to be some occasional mentions of Jesus outside Christian literature, and then more as time progressed. By that time, of course, there was no first-hand information on Jesus. Thus, the logical conclusion is that information from that point on is unreliable. The story of Jesus had been popularized by Christians, and many just accepted that it was based on a real historical figure, but there was no way for them to know if this was true.

            We have seen that the Bible is full of contradictions, fabricated prophetic fulfillments, absurdities, injustices and other problems, and therefore it is unreliable as a source of information. There is no reason to suspect any better for the other early Christian writings that did not make it into the Biblical canon. Thus, all of the earliest information on Jesus comes from long after he supposedly lived, is clearly unreliable, and is most likely loaded with tales that grew taller over time (as we all know often happens when stories are told and retold over time).

            So, what can we make of this? Well, the historicity of Jesus is not as well established as preachers often claim. It could be that some guy named Jesus lived and taught, and after a while some stories of him grew into the tales we see in the Bible. In other words, he was not the remarkable person depicted in the Bible, and thus would not have warranted being recorded by contemporary historians. It is equally possible that no such Jesus ever even existed, but was completely made up with stories that grew over time. Most modern historians ascribe to the former view that Jesus is loosely based on a real person, but there is a growing movement of those who are convinced of the latter view that Jesus really didn't exist. From my perspective, it really doesn't matter all that much. After all, once the Biblical portrayal of Jesus is known to be flawed, Christianity crumbles anyway, whether or not a Jesus of Nazareth existed.

 

Relying on Fallible Humans

            We know that the books of the Bible have been written by men, copied by men, edited by men, distributed by men, canonized by men, translated by men, printed by men and marketed by men. In addition, missionary work, evangelism, preaching and teaching are also done by people. With all this work being done by mere mortal, fallible human beings, one has to wonder just why God doesn't speak for himself! Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful God who wanted to get a message out be so dependent on fallible mankind to do his bidding for him?

            If an all-knowing, all-powerful God existed and wanted to get a message out, then he would inevitably know how to do so! There would be no question in anyone's mind about the existence of the Christian God if he merely made himself clear, so why does he not do that? Why does this God instead just sit back and leave it all up to mere fallible man? Doesn't that seem a bit counter-productive?

            If you really stop and think about it, doesn't it seem a bit more likely that the reason all of this is so dependent on humans is because the religion is simply of human origin, just like other religions? Doesn't it actually look like the idea that Christianity comes from an indisputable God is not at all supported by the evidence?

 

The Holy Spirit and the Placebo Effect

            Christians often claim that they know that Christianity is true because they "feel" the Holy Spirit. I used to think that I felt the Holy Spirit too, but now I recognize it as something conjured up in my own mind. Feelings are very subjective, and we should never allow feelings to override evidence. After all, we know that people of all different persuasions "feel" that they are right, so if feelings were proof, then all views would be true. But, of course, it is logically impossible for all views to be true. Thus, feelings are not a reliable source for determining truth.

            An interesting thing that has been documented in medical studies is something known as the Placebo Effect. Basically, it shows that sometimes one can be led to feel a certain way simply because of an expectation to feel that way. For example, sometimes an ailment caused by stress or some other non-viral issue can be treated with drugs that do nothing. A doctor can prescribe a pill that is just a sugar pill, but since the patient thinks it is a legitimate drug that should help him, the patient then sometimes does begin to feel better. It is basically a mind game, and it is known to be effective sometimes.

            In the same way, some people in an ethereal mindset of praise and worship of what they believe to be an all-powerful God who loves them immensely and has redeemed them can then experience a transcendent, overwhelming feeling that they attribute to the Holy Spirit. This is caused by their own expectation and mindset, and the reason they attribute it to a "Holy Spirit" is because they have been indoctrinated with a belief in such a Holy Spirit. The feeling seems supernatural to those who experience it, but it is a wholly natural phenomenon. I am now convinced that this is what I experienced when I was a Christian.

 

Pascal's Wager

            Pascal's Wager is a very common Christian argument, even though many who use it are not familiar with the title. Basically, Pascal's Wager goes like this: Either Christianity is true or it is false. If it is false, then there will be no judgment and the Christian has nothing to fear. On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then there will be a judgment and the unbeliever will suffer severe consequences in Hell.

            This common argument is severely flawed. It sets up a false dichotomy, as though the only religious option is Christianity, and the odds of which side is right are 50/50. In reality, though, there are numerous religious views out there, including Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhism, and a bunch of others. Not only that, but there are multiple denominations within some religions, including Christianity. In fact, some of the different Christian denominations argue that they are the only true Christian church, and the others are wrong.

            So, when considering all of this, what if the Christian is wrong and the Muslim is right? Islam teaches that non-Muslims go to Hell, so therefore the Christian would have Hell to fear in this scenario, if the Christian is wrong. In fact, while Christianity requires you to accept Jesus as your savior, to a Muslim it is blasphemy to worship or honor a man as such!

            Even though Pascal's Wager is typically presented as though it's just a matter of whether the Christian or the nonbeliever is right, the wager still fails to acknowledge that there actually are losses for the Christian if he's wrong. Churches require a lot of funding, and many Christians tithe 10% of their income to the church, so there is monetary loss. There is also a lot of time involved in going to church, learning doctrine and doing other things such as witnessing or trying to get people to go to church; that time could be spent doing more productive things. Another factor is the needless fear of a fictional lake of fire, which Christianity fosters. There is also the issue of being trained to be prejudiced against (and even demonize) those the church doesn't like, such as nonbelievers, followers of other religious views, homosexuals, etc. For the conservative Christian, there is the unfortunate refusal to be open-minded toward science, due to the requirement to suppress information that doesn't conform to his dogma. Also, there is the unfortunate refusal to objectively evaluate evidence regarding Christianity, because the Christian is required to make everything conform to his preconceived notion that his religion just has to be true. And finally, some Christians have even lost their lives or loved ones because of trusting in "the power of prayer" instead of seeking medical help.

            Also, Pascal's Wager actually assumes that either belief is a choice or it can be faked. But how does that stack up to reality? Can you choose to believe something that you really don't believe? Just try to do it! Right now, choose to believe in Islam! Come on, choose it! OK, how did that work for you? Were you able to choose to believe Islam for a little bit? No? Well then, try another one. Right now, choose to believe in Santa Claus! Make that choice! OK, how did that one work for you? Were you able to choose to believe in Santa Claus? Oh, that didn't work either? You see, contrary to what a lot of Christians want to think, belief is not a choice. A lot of factors go into one's beliefs, and you can't just change your beliefs on a whim.

            And what about the other part, that belief can be faked? While it is true that one can pretend to believe something that he really doesn't believe, what would be the point in doing that in the context of a wager in which there is supposed to be an omniscient God as the judge? Would it be possible to fool an omniscient God by pretending to believe? That notion is rather silly, is it not?

            Those who use Pascal's Wager often also claim that Christianity is belief-worthy because it leads to a "better life." However, this claim is highly subjective. A Christian may think that he has a better life, but there are people of other belief systems who think that they have the better life. Many Muslims consider Islam to be the best life, many Buddhists consider Buddhism to be the best life, many Hindus consider Hinduism to be the best life, and many atheists consider atheism to be the best life. In reality, just because something works for you and seems best to you does not automatically mean that it is what is best for everyone.

            Considering all of this, Pascal's Wager is not as cut-and-dry as it is presented as being. It is a silly argument that gives Christians a cushy feeling that even if they're wrong, it doesn't matter, and they gullibly think that it is a valid argument to an outsider. For those who prefer to use logic and reason, though, the wager simply does not work.

            In reality, what matters more than a little wager is evidence. And, as has been detailed throughout this letter, the evidence against Christianity is insurmountable (and this letter has not hit on all the evidence!). Therefore, Pascal's Wager is wrong in the way it treats the matter as having 50/50 chance of Christianity being true, since the evidence indicates that such is not the case. I cannot believe that which the weight of the evidence indicates is not true, and no silly little wager can affect that.

 

Religion and Morality

            Christians often argue that religion is necessary for good moral behavior. Some even go so far as to say that even if their religion isn't true, then it still provides a superior moral framework. However, is this view really justified?

            What constitutes morality between humans? Isn't it a matter of treating each other fairly and with compassion? Shouldn't we try to understand others instead of automatically demonizing those who are different? Isn't society better off without cruel and unjust behavior? Shouldn't we all seek to do what is kind toward each other?

            In the "Cruelties and Injustices" section I detailed a lot of vicious and unfair acts being advocated by the Bible, which are immoral by any reasonable assessment. Beyond that, a lot of such immoral acts have been perpetrated in the name of religion. There were the Crusades where for nearly 200 years Christians viciously and repeatedly attacked Muslims. The Inquisition also lasted hundreds of years and involved Christians torturing people who simply held views that were considered "heretical." The Biblical sanction of slavery was used to justify American Christians having African slaves. In more recent times we experienced 9/11, where some Muslims attacked and killed innocent victims. Also in recent times, some Nigerian Christian pastors have accused people of being "witches" and had them burned to death (I have actually seen video footage of one of these burnings). Such cruelties are quite disturbing!

Some try to argue that those people weren't "true Christians" (or "true Muslims"). However, the fact is that they had texts from their holy books that justified their behavior. Those of us with a better moral sense, including many modern Christians, realize that those actions were cruel and immoral. Yet the perpetrators were fueled by religion and believed that they were doing the right thing. The dogmatic view that one's religion and god are absolutely right and that people with other gods and religions are following the devil can very easily lead down a path of doing such heinous things, as has actually happened quite a bit.

            Others adopt a more live-and-let-live approach to religion, which is definitely more admirable. However, if that higher ground was automatically inspired by religion, then wouldn't all religious people hold to it (or at least all people of one religion, such as Christianity)? The fact that different people within a single religion can have different views on these things is a pretty good indicator that our moral sense does not necessarily come from religion, but can be a personal thing that people often apply to their religion. Those whose moral sensibility leads them to be kind and generous will gravitate toward the kind and generous aspects of their religion, while those with a harsher moral view will gravitate toward the harsher aspects of their religion.

While there are people who are influenced by their religious training to behave differently than they otherwise would have, once those views are ingrained in them they have to resort to rationalizing away passages of their holy books that advocate different behavior (for example, when Christians write off cruelties in the Bible as "just the Old Testament"). Thus, the morality that they adhere to becomes a measuring stick, whether they arrived at it through personal reasoning or feelings or indoctrination, by which they evaluate and reinterpret things. A morality that causes one to reinterpret religion to fit with it is not a morality consistently derived from that religion.

To expound on a previous point, I see no justification for burning "witches" to death. Witchcraft is superstition, which should be rather obvious to those carrying out the burnings. Think about it: If those individuals who were burned to death were really witches, then wouldn't they have used their supernatural powers to get out of the situation they were in? The whole thing is a bit ridiculous and is a good example to show how people can be cruel and irrational on the basis of believing in superstitious nonsense.

To be fair, of course there are some good things in religion. Jesus supposedly said, "Therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12). That is a noble concept, but it is not exclusive to Christianity, nor even to religion in general. People of other religions and even nonreligious people agree that that's a good principle to live by. Obviously, religion in general and Christianity in particular are not necessary for such a view. This can be said of pretty much any good moral teaching, in that we can have a good moral sensibility without religion.

Simply put, the notion that religion is needed to be good is an illusion. One can be moral or immoral whether or not one is religious. Also, as has been duly noted, religion has often been a source of cruel and unjust behavior. As such, it is a baseless claim to say that religion is necessary for morality.

 

Faith vs. Understanding

            After being confronted with all of the information that I have brought up, the only way I see that anyone could continue to believe in Christianity is to turn off the mind and just try to maintain a blind faith. However, is such faith a desirable attribute? Can one be sure to be following truth when one ignores insurmountable evidence? After all, if something is really true, then wouldn't a thorough investigation actually validate it as truth?

            What about other religions? If a Muslim is presented with facts that render Islam untrue, would it be noble for the Muslim to disregard those facts and rely on blind faith? If a Mormon is presented with facts that render Mormonism untrue, would it be noble for the Mormon to disregard those facts and rely on blind faith? Is blind faith in spite of evidence a positive attribute in any religion?

            There is a popular verse that says, "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5). We are also told, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9). Christians love to cite things like these and insist that we should just trust God and not doubt or question. However, that mentality could also be applied to other religions. Who are you to question Allah? Just believe! Who are you to question Zeus? Just believe! Who are you to question Ra, Thor, Baal or any of the plethora of other gods that man has conceived of? Just believe!

            We have to ask ourselves, then, how can one know the truth without scrutiny? What does the truth have to fear from honest questioning and investigation? Why would God create mankind with the capacity to reason and then insist that we not use it?

            In reality, the "lean not unto thine own understanding" (Prov 3:5) mentality is a religious tool for controlling followers. This letter has thoroughly demonstrated that there are insurmountable problems with the Bible that completely undermine the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible is just a collection of human religious writings, and that is all. Clearly, this idea of trusting without question did not come from God, it came from men. Submitting to this man-made control tool will not lead one to the truth, but will rather keep one in the dark. Christians don't want people of other religions to disregard evidence and reason for the sake of blind faith in those religions, yet these same Christians hypocritically disregard evidence and reason themselves for the sake of blind faith in their own religion!

What it really boils down to is what one places in higher regard, a commitment to truth or a commitment to blind faith in a preconceived and uninformed perspective. As for me, I simply want truth, and the inescapable conclusion from the evidence before me is that Christianity is not truth.

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

            From this, I hope that you can see that I have valid reasons for no longer believing the Bible. Belief in the Bible had been so ingrained in my mind that it was incredibly difficult to open myself up to the possibility that it wasn't true, but with so much evidence against the Bible, I simply could no longer maintain my trust in it. In light of what has been discussed here, I no longer view the Bible as the Word of God. It seems abundantly clear to me that the Bible is simply a compilation of the writings of ancient religious people and nothing more. The concept of divine inspiration has been imposed upon the book, and it is simply unwarranted.

Again, for clarification, I have not chosen to abandon the faith. I simply cannot choose to believe that which the weight of evidence indicates is not true. I am now convinced that when I "felt" God's presence as a believer, it was all conjured up in my mind. I was misled, plain and simple. I have not chosen to believe that, it seems abundantly obvious to me now. I have not chosen to reject Christianity, I simply have no choice in the matter.

The ironic thing is that when I was a firm believer, I read some books about other belief systems (primarily the "pseudo-Christian cults"), thinking that it would be awful to be raised with a firm belief in something that was dead wrong. Little did I know that such was the case with myself!

In closing, I believe that we should always seek truth, not just confirmation of what we assume to be true. We should always want an honest evaluation of the facts, regardless of whether or not it's a comfortable process or if the reasonable conclusion confirms or undermines our beliefs. What really matters is not blind allegiance to a particular worldview, but rather truth.

[LogicalFallacy]

And Citsonga does it again. We can all go home now.

 

+10  

[midniterider]

 

 

As I have said, I don't believe there is any 'free' will.  We have a will but it is always acted upon by other sources. 

 

Who are you serving?

 

Stranger

 

My family. People who exist.

[Stranger]

 

 

Demonstrably false. The bible was written by men. At best you can claim that God inspired men to write the bible.

 

If  God wrote the bible you have a huge issue with an omniscient being getting so much wrong in the bible. An omniscient being wouldn't even have simple errors like numbers reported incorrectly.

 

So yeah, we know an omniscient being did not write the bible.

 

 

God inspired men to write the Bible making it the Word of God.

 

The Bible is the only written Word of God in existence. 

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

@Stranger     

 

 

 

The God of the bible evolved out of the Canaanite gods. So in a way they worshiped the precursor the God of the bible.

 

Genesis 1:26-28King James Version (KJV)

²⁶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

 

Who is "us" and "our"?

 

Again, if God was of the Canaanite gods, He would not have destroyed them.

 

'Us' and 'Our' are God.

 

Stranger

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

 

Well, as I have said, all I can say is that I don't see it in the Scripture.   Do you believe you were incorrect in your doctrine of 'Once Saved Always Saved'?   

 

In other words, were you saved and then not saved?  Or were you never saved as now you don't believe any of it, and none of it was ever true?

 

Stranger

 

I didn't like the phrase "Once Saved Always Saved" when I was a Christian because it seemed to be mostly used by people who wanted what I would've called a "license to sin." The perspective I held was that the Holy Spirit changed the regenerated believer, and therefore the "true Christian" would ultimately desire to be Christlike.

 

Anyway, I think my last 8 posts should make the answer to your questions quite obvious.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

God inspired men to write the Bible making it the Word of God.

 

The Bible is the only written Word of God in existence. 

 

Stranger

 

So you are saying then that god gets things wrong? What is your explanation for the many errors in the bible? - some of which are brilliantly pointed out by Citsonga above.

 

Correction: The bible is the only written word pertaining to YOUR God. There is also the Quran of Allah, the Book of Mormon, the Torah and Jewish misdrash and so on. All proclaiming to be from "God"

 

 

[Stranger]

 

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.  Genesis 2:16,17

 

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.  Genesis 5:5

 

god is a liar.

 

Not so.  Adam and Eve did die the moment they ate of the fruit.  They experienced immediate spiritual death.  And they immediately began to die physically.   Death now worked in them as a disease.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

If god is omnipotent, then why does evil exist?  He either cannot control it, or he chooses not to.  Which is it?

 

Evil exists because it serves God's purpose.  

 

Stranger