Tag: Merle Hertzler

Here’s the link to this article by Merle Hertzler.

Christian friend, you may be open to questions about errors in the Bible. You might be open to exploring concepts like evolution. But suppose we were to turn to questions about Jesus. Are you open to questioning him? Can you question his life, as recorded in the gospels? Can we question the resurrection?

Some of you may hesitate at this point. I understand. There was a time when I tried to avoid such questions. I feared what might happen if I allowed my faith in Jesus to be questioned.

And yet there is tremendous benefit in allowing our beliefs to be questioned. Albert Einstein once wrote, “The important thing is to not stop questioning.” I agree. When we entertain questions about our opinions, we sometimes find that our reasoning stands firm even under challenging questions, and our confidence increases. Other times we ask questions and find that our understanding could advance to a higher level. Either way, questioning has great value.

So maybe it would be okay to question even one’s belief in Jesus.

A Rule with Many Exceptions

But first, let us look at why some might be nervous about continuing. You are probably aware that the Bible has some stern warnings about unbelief. For instance, John 3:18 says, “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” That’s a harsh warning. Should we be concerned?

I personally don’t believe John 3:18. Perhaps you do. Even if you do believe this verse, I suspect that you find ways to make exceptions to that rule, “He who does not believe has been judged already.”

For instance, are babies exempt from this rule? Most believers think so. They don’t think that God would condemn babies who had no ability to believe. So, they make an exception. Apparently, that verse doesn’t apply to everyone that doesn’t believe.

Are there other exceptions? How about those who do not ever reach the mental capacity to understand such things? Are they doomed? Again, many believers make an exception here.

How about folks in the Old Testament? Were they without hope because they were born too early? Again, many people make an exception here. There was hope for them, apparently, even though they never heard of Jesus.

So, we have already found three exceptions to the rule that dooms all who do not believe in Jesus. Many Christians acknowledge all three exceptions. They find other verses and various arguments to override this verse. It has exceptions, or so they say.

Then there is another possible exception: those that have never heard. What happens to them? There are many tribes that Christians did not even know about for the first 1500 years of Christianity. What happened to them? Were they doomed, no matter how sincerely they sought God? Many are uncomfortable saying that. And so, they find a way to add yet another exception.

It doesn’t matter if somebody tells us a few stories of spiritually hungry natives who somehow heard the story. What about the many that did not?

Christians differ on this issue. Some take the hard line and say that those who have not heard are lost forever. What kind of a God would do that? But others acknowledge that, if these uninformed people had sincerely sought God, God may forgive them, even if they had never heard about Jesus. So here we find many Christians make a fourth exception to the rule that without belief we are doomed. They will allow that the uninformed heathen have a chance of heaven without specific belief in Jesus.

The rule is leaking like a sieve. If there are so many exceptions, why wouldn’t there be an exception for the one that honestly thinks a particular story–the life of Jesus as recorded in the gospels–never happened? Why would God condemn the one who honestly thinks the gospels were works of fiction? If God can accept babies and savages, why not accept the one who differs on a question of history?

And if God makes exceptions for those who differ on questions of history, then it would be okay for you to questions the gospels and go wherever the facts lead.

How correct must we be?

But suppose you take the hard line and say I do not get an exception. Then I would ask another question. Exactly what do I need to believe?

We need to define what it means to believe in Jesus. How far can you be from the biblical Jesus and still be safe? Let’s suppose you think Jesus died in Bethlehem. The Bible, of course, says it was in Jerusalem. Are you forever condemned for making this mistake in geography? Can God forgive you for this error?

Similarly, what would happen if you thought it happened in Damascus? In Rome? In darkest Peru? Surely God would overlook that mistake, wouldn’t he? What if you thought it happened in heaven? Should a soul be tortured for countless ages because he misunderstood and thought the crucifixion happened in heaven?

It seems to me that the location has nothing to do with it.

Similarly, suppose somebody is mistaken about the time of Jesus’ death. Most scholars say the crucifixion happened around 30 AD. (Some, however, think it never happened.) Suppose somebody thinks it was 100 BC. Is this person in eternal danger for making this historical error? How about 1800 AD? How about 4004 BC? How close does one need to be to the actual date? Is there a cutoff date, beyond which you are forever cursed? It seems that it would be silly to even suggest it.

Next let’s ask about the nature of his death. If we think the instrument of death was something other than a cross, are we doomed? Is a man a filthy heretic if he thinks Jesus was killed with a stake, a noose, a sword, or a grenade? Surely that detail cannot condemn one for eternity.

How about the pronunciation of the name? If we pronounce the name Hay-sus or Jay-thus or X-thus are we lost? What if we spell it Jethus or Jithus or Mithus or Mithas or Mithras? Are we doomed if we commit the social error of misspelling the name? I don’t think so. How close do we need to be?

How about the story of his life? Must we believe that Jesus walked on water? Must we believe that he told the women condemned in adultery to “Go and sin no more?” Probably not. After all, many Evangelical scholars now believe that this last story was inserted into the Bible many years later and might not have ever happened.

If we need to know the exact details of his life, all are in peril. For we can never be sure exactly which stories, if any, were altered. If today’s gospel texts were altered, how could we be expected to know what was in the original so we could believe it?

And if God just wants us to believe whatever is in the Bible today, what about those Christians who lived before John 8: 3-11 was inserted? Did they need to believe that story?

What about Jesus’ characteristics? Must we believe that his body was made of molecules? That he was of Jewish descent? Must we believe that he was physically male? Must we have the correct understanding of the nature of the incarnation? Surely, the answer is no. Surely these things do not condemn a person.

Now let’s put it all together. What if somebody believes that the Son of God was named Pedro and was killed with a sword in Peru in 1950? Can he be saved by trusting in Pedro? Or is he condemned forever because he got so many details wrong?

How many details can somebody have wrong without receiving condemnation? And why would it matter to God if a sincere person was mistaken on certain trivia? Would God cast a person out forever because he was mistaken on a question of history?

However, if you think that God could accept such a person, then it seems that your Christianity is not so exclusive after all. And it would seem that you agree that one need not believe the gospel stories to have salvation.

What if somebody mistakenly thinks that the Son of God was named Mithras or Horus and died in the spirit world? Is that close enough? If not, then exactly where was the line crossed? On the other hand, if these beliefs are close enough, then understand that, in ancient Egypt, many believed in Horus, a savior-god who supposedly died and rose again to bring salvation. So, did ancient Egyptians who trusted in the salvation provided by Horus truly receive salvation through Horus?

Some Christians will tell me, “No, Jesus saves but Horus doesn’t.”

In that case, what if those Egyptians had used the name Jesus instead of Horus? Would they then have received salvation by accepting that Jesus? Many will tell me that this would not be sufficient, that this would be a different Jesus.

But why is their Jesus not considered to be the same? Some will say he is different, for the details of the life of Horus differ with the gospels. And yet the story of Horus is surprisingly close to the story of Jesus in the gospels. Both are said to have had twelve disciples; both preached a Sermon on the Mount; both died of crucifixion; and both arose, according to the stories. So, if the ancient Egyptians had changed the name of the dying savior from Horus to Jesus, would that have resulted in eternal salvation?

​Mithras by David Ulansey. The story of Mithras The Virgin Birth by James Still Were events in Jesus’ life copied from earlier saviors/god-men/heroes?by B. A. Robinson. Were the stories of Jesus’ life copied from the Egyptian God Horus’ life? by B. A. Robinson.

Mithras and Horus links

Many will tell me, “No, the real Jesus is the one from Nazareth. This Horus is from somewhere else.”

But is one to be condemned forever for getting the mailing address of the Christ wrong?

The story of salvation is losing all of its plausibility. It is starting to sound like believers are saying that whoever is close to their opinions of the savior will have eternal happiness, and those who have other views will be condemned. Why would God condemn people based on trivia?

On the other hand, if you allow that one could differ on the location of the savior’s life; differ on the name; differ on the date; differ on certain other details, and still have salvation, you have conceded salvation to the ancient Egyptian believers in Horus. Belief in the gospels would lose its importance.

It seems to me that a loving God, if he exists, could not condemn a man who differed on what happened in history provided he really wanted to be forgiven for his hurtful actions. How could God judge a man simply because he disagrees about whether a particular event is historical?

Was the crucifixion necessary?

Perhaps you will reply by saying that we do not need to believe all the details, that we only need to believe that God’s son died for our sins.

Think about what the requirement for a dying savior means. Surely this is one of the most unusual demands that anybody could make before he will forgive.

Let me illustrate. Suppose you do something that upsets a good friend of yours. You find out that he is angry. You do not want to lose his friendship. You go and apologize. Now suppose that this friend tells you that he would like to forgive you, but since what you did made him very upset, somebody will need to suffer. You watch as he pulls a whip out of his closet and asks his son to lean over a chair. Then he hands the whip to another man who begins to whip the boy. You beg for the man to stop. Blood is everywhere. You are horrified as the lifeless body of your friend’s son falls to the floor.

Then your friend retrieves the whip, puts it away, turns to you with a smile, and announces that you are now forgiven. He says that his son has died for you and has paid the price in full. Your friend tells you that his wrath is satisfied, and that you are now reconciled to him.

What do you do? Would you embrace this man? No, I don’t think so. You would not want to be friends with that man. He must be a lunatic.

And yet how does the gospel story really differ from this? Are we to believe that God needed to do something very similar to what this lunatic did? We are told that God could not forgive until he had left his innocent Son suffer and die. I thought God was supposed to be able to do anything. If I can forgive people without resorting to such an act, why can’t he?

How do you know that Calvary was necessary? Yes, I know it is in the Bible, but as I have discussed earlier, that book may be mistaken. Is there any other reason to believe this is necessary? I cannot think of any.

So, suppose somebody wants God’s forgiveness, but is not sure that the story of a bloody death was necessary. After all, demanding that one’s own innocent son be killed before forgiving somebody else is a demand that no normal human would make. Does God make this demand? Perhaps the divine world is so different from ours that this makes sense to him. Yet somehow, I doubt it. Why would God demand that we believe this story to be forgiven? Personally, I do not think he would make such a demand.

I conclude that you do not need to believe all the details of Jesus’s life to escape doom. You do not need to believe in a sacrificial death. You will not be doomed for sincerely asking questions. It is safe to get out of the bunker. It is safe to question–even the gospels. You can read Matthew and ask if it really happened this way.

And as you question, it is safe to go wherever the facts lead.

What about Hell?

There is a little word that is seldom heard in church anymore–hell. The concept of eternal torment in an inescapable fire does not fit well with the culture of self-esteem, unconditional acceptance, and a personal relationship with a compassionate God. Can you relate to a God who would treat his creatures thus?

Could you, for instance, hold a dog’s paw on a hot frying pan for hours, ignoring its yelps?

Could you torture a person with fire for hours? No? You are too compassionate to do that? So how could God keep a man forever in unimaginable fire?

If you were God, would you condemn your decent, moral atheist neighbor to eternal hell without chance of parole? Are you that kind of person? Or would you show mercy?

If you would show mercy, and you have a close personal relationship with a God who would condemn people forever, shouldn’t you tell him that you disagree with hell the next time you two have a chat? Do you have that kind of intimate, open relationship with God?

And if you tell God you disagree, shouldn’t you also tell your pastor you want your church doctrinal statement corrected? If, instead of objecting, you sign a document that says you will support a doctrinal statement that includes hell, then people will need to assume that you are the kind of person who approves of tormenting people forever without mercy. If you sign it, people will assume you mean it.

I hope you understand why I am confused when someone says belief in eternal torment without mercy is compatible with the teaching of unconditional acceptance that is so popular in the church today. To me, those are completely incompatible.

Just in Case?

You may have another question: What if I am wrong? Should I follow anyway, just in case it might be true? But if I were to do that, which way should I follow? Should I follow Catholicism, just in case? Should I follow the Eastern Orthodox practice, just in case? Should I also follow Islam, Mormonism, Satanism, Hinduism, Bahai, Judaism, and the long-bearded robed hippie at the airport, just in case they are right? I would never be able to follow all of these religions, for they conflict with each other.

Oh, do you want me to follow just yours? So, your way is better? How could I know that your way is better if I do not ask questions? So, I ask questions. And the answers I get do not validate dogmatic beliefs.

Some suggest that I should believe anyway. They will tell me I have too much to lose if I am wrong. The payoff for Christianity is infinite, or so I have been told. Should I follow it on the outside chance that it might be true?

This argument is known as Pascal’s wager. It is faulty.

Suppose I elect to believe just in case, and select your religious views–ignoring for the moment that many religions conflict with yours–and somehow, I manage to “believe,” even though I am not convinced it is true. What does it even mean to believe something you are not convinced is true? Would God honor this kind of belief? Would God honor me for going through the motions of belief and acting as though I believe, even though I doubt? Wouldn’t that be dishonest?

Does God honor dishonesty? If your God promotes such dishonesty about our opinions, then how do you know you can trust him? For a God who wants me to pretend to believe might himself be pretending when he makes a promise. A God who blesses lying might himself be lying. A God who loves intellectual dishonesty might himself be dishonest. If such a God exists, we are all in peril. Nobody could know what a dishonest God would do.

There is another possibility. Perhaps God, if he exists, desires intellectual honesty. Perhaps he wants us to examine things openly and truthfully, and then to be honest about what we find. If this describes God, then I am doing the right thing by being open with my views.

I would not want to face an honest God after living a lifetime of pretending to believe something I don’t. So, if I must step up to the table and place my bets, I will bet that, if God exists, he wants me to be honest. I will call it as I see it. I see no value in doing it any other way.

Pascal’s Wager by Alan Hájek Pascal’s Wager by B. A. Robinson Pascal’s Wager by Richard Carrier

Pascal’s Wager links

Can we choose to believe?

Let’s assume for a minute that it really is true that we have to believe certain historical statements to escape doom. Let’s assume that we need to believe these assertions, even if we think there is no evidence. What is the poor unbeliever to do? Can he force himself to believe something that he thinks is not supported by evidence?

By illustration, suppose I told you that you must believe that John F. Kennedy was the first president of the United States. Suppose I told you that, if you thought it was George Washington, you would be tortured. Can you believe it was Kennedy? Try very hard. Do you believe that John F. Kennedy was the first U.S. president? You can pretend to believe it. That’s not the challenge. Can you believe it?

If you have any knowledge of American history, you will not be able to believe it. It is like telling a leopard to stop having spots.

Even if an informed unbeliever wanted to believe Christianity, he could not truly do it. He would not believe it in his heart. The best he could do is pretend to believe it. And pretending to believe is hypocrisy and is not good enough according to most Christians.

So, the informed unbeliever does not even have the option. He could not believe it just in case.

Why would God demand that we believe something that we do not think is true? Wouldn’t he want us to believe the evidence, wherever that takes us? We have a mind. Why not use it?

As Robert Ingersoll put it, “If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker?”

So let us boldly question.

---

Some would tell us that there is indeed good evidence for Christ. Very well, let us look at the evidence. But let us do it with an open mind. Let us not worry that we will be lost if we misunderstand. Let us honestly search for the truth.

Here’s the link to this article by Merle Hertzler.

So far, we have seen that the Bible is often mistaken. We haven’t seen good evidence that it was directly inspired by God. Now this does not necessarily mean that the Bible is bad. It just means that when we read it, it is okay to be on the lookout and question what we read.

You may be concerned where this is leading. Perhaps to you the Bible is the source of moral judgement. It is your only hope to find your way in life. You may wonder how anybody could attempt to chart his course through life without its moral compass. And you may be concerned that we are undercutting that hope. I can understand your concern. I once had similar views of the Bible. I still find passages in the Bible that are inspiring. But other passages? Not so much.

And I find other books that I find inspiring besides the Bible.

Perhaps you would claim that the comfort and guidance you receive from the Bible puts it in a class of its own, far above any other book. But is this really what we find in the Bible? Let’s see. Let’s take a few minutes to look at the guidance that the Bible offers. Do we need the Bible’s guidance to know what is right and wrong?

The Law of Moses

Let’s begin by looking at Deut 22:11. It says, “You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.” Do you follow that rule? Did you check the labels before you dressed this morning? I think you ignored this commandment today, just like I did. Why do we ignore it? I neglect it because I think it is unreasonable.

Why did you neglect it?

If the Bible is your source of guidance, why do you simply ignore this rule, and live as though it doesn’t exist?

This rule is unreasonable. If you and I let reason override this rule, then it seems to me that reason, not the Bible, is our ultimate guide.

Many Christians have never read the whole Bible and are not aware of the moral teachings that are found in it. Let’s look at some.

Exodus 23:19 tells us we may not cook a baby goat in its mother’s milk. Do you worry about keeping this commandment?

Gen. 17:14 tells us a child is to be punished when his parents neglect to have him circumcised. Is that fair?

Ex. 20:8-11, 31:15-17, 34:21, and 35:1-3 tell us that no work may be done on the Sabbath (Saturday) not even the lighting of a fire. The penalty is death. Do you recommend that we kill people who light a fire in their fireplace on Saturday? [1]

Lev. 3:17 tells us that we may never eat fat. So how is it that we eat hamburgers without guilt?

Lev. 27:1-7 tells us that males are more valuable than females. I doubt if many of my female readers agree! These verses are mistaken, aren’t they?

Num. 5:12-31, tells us that if we suspect our wife has committed adultery, she is to be tested by making her drink water mixed with dirt from the tabernacle. The tabernacle! This is the place where animals were sacrificed, where blood was spilt. Imagine all the germs that would be on that dirty floor! But she is to drink water with some of that dirt mixed in. If she gets sick after drinking this dirty water, she is guilty. Do you recommend that we implement this test procedure? I don’t.

By the way, there is no such test given for men. Is this fair?

Deut. 22:5 tells us we may not wear clothing of the opposite sex. Do you think it is a sin for a woman to wear her husband’s shirt? No? Then you disagree with Deuteronomy.

Deut. 23:1 tells us that a man whose testicles are crushed may not enter the assembly of the Lord. Should we set up an inspection station at the church doors, asking every man to kindly drop his drawers for inspection. Should we keep the injured people out? Or should we just pretend this verse isn’t there?

Deut. 25:11-12 tells us that a wife who grabs her husband’s attacker by his private parts must have her hand cut off and is to be shown no pity. It does not matter that she was only trying to protect her husband. Do you agree?

I could give many more examples. [2]

Was the Old Testament Mistaken?

Many will quickly distance themselves from the above verses. They will object that these verses are in the Old Testament [3], and we no longer are required to keep them. But the issue here is not whether you are still required to keep them. The issue is whether these commands are good. Do they represent a high level of morality? Or are they mistaken?

If you say they are a mistaken morality of primitive people, then why are they in the Bible? If the Old Testament is mistaken about whether an injured person can enter the assembly of the Lord, or how to properly deal with the accusation of adultery, where else is it wrong? Is it wrong also on creation? Is it wrong in its theology?

Christians that are quick to distance themselves from the Old Testament are apparently unaware of how closely the Old Testament is tied to the New Testament. For instance Matthew 23:1-3 says,

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.”

So, do you follow these verses? They tell you to do all that the Pharisees command you from the Law of Moses. Do you do everything the teachers of the law teach?

And what about Matthew 5:18-20, which teaches that we should follow even the minor laws,

“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Is the law that forbids the mixing of fabrics one of the least of the laws? According to these verses, if you ignore the least of the laws, you will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. So why do you ignore them?

Some say that Matthew 5 does not apply, for all “was accomplished” by Jesus. But if the author was trying to teach that this only applies until the death of Jesus, he used most unclear language. Besides, the book of Matthew was not written until years after Christ died. Why did Matthew even bother to write this? Is it not clear that when Matthew was writing this he expected his readers to believe they needed to keep the law if they wanted to be great in the kingdom of heaven?

And so, it appears that Matthew, writing long after the death of Christ, still expects that his readers need to keep the law in order to be great in the kingdom of heaven.

Even Paul writes, “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” (Rom 3:31) He also says, “For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” (Romans 2:13)

So, the New Testament simply does not distance itself from the Old Testament the way many hope. If you want to escape the problem by distancing yourself from the Old Testament, you will find yourself at odds with the New Testament support of the Law.

Was the Law just a Teacher?

I once discussed these things with a pastor. He told me I misunderstood. He said that these laws were not really about morality, but were simply there to show us our sinfulness, and bring us to Christ.

But how could a frivolous and immoral law prove we are sinful? If you want to measure moral character, do you not need a reliable moral standard? You surely must not think that the laws mentioned above represent a high standard of conduct. Or do you? If they are faulty, how can they be used to prove our sinful state? If the inspection gauge in the factory is faulty, you could not use it to prove the whole production run is flawed.

And isn’t this whole view of the-law-as-teacher callused to the needs of the people before Christ? Why would God leave them with an inadequate law for centuries just to prove a point to us that would follow later on?

Also, if Jehovah did give us the Law of Moses, and we find that this first system of his to be faulty, does that prove that his second plan, the gospel, is good? If an engineer gives you a defective design, and the building collapses, would you trust him with the redesign? If he told you he deliberately gave you a deficient design in order to prove that you really needed his improved design, would you buy his argument? I think not. You would look elsewhere.

So, if Jehovah’s was behind the first covenant, the Law of Moses, and it is not good, why not look elsewhere? If that is the case, why give Jehovah a second chance?

I find no reason to believe this law was given by God. It seems more likely to me that it was an early attempt by primitive people to define morality.

Slavery

Let’s look at something more substantial than clothes or goat meat–the issue of slavery. Look at Exodus 21:2-7.

“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. “If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. “If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

Do you have an opinion on the morality of this passage? Is it right to buy slaves, even if the period is limited to six years? What do you think about the poor women slaves? If the men could go free after six years, why should the women be slaves for life? And look at the condition that was placed on these male slaves obtaining their freedom. If a slave had married while in slavery, his wife and children could not leave with him. Only the man could leave. Should a decent man accept this offer and abandon his family as slaves? What kind of family values is that?

Do you have an ounce of respect for the father who takes his little girl–the one that cuddles in his lap at night and calls him “Daddy”–and sells her into lifelong slavery? Why does the Bible allow it? Is it really moral to sell one’s own daughter, knowing that she and her children will become slaves for life? I can’t even imagine a person thinking this is acceptable. Help me out here. What am I missing?

You may suggest that conditions were different back then, so God had different rules. But do you really believe that? Suppose you are watching a movie. You see the story of a slave owner who buys young ladies and young men as slaves. You watch as a man sells his own daughter to be a slave. There you see the slave-owner give this young girl to another slave as his wife. You watch as her slave husband walks off after six years, free of all responsibility, leaving her and the children as slaves. On screen you see their wretched, abandoned lives as slaves without a committed father or husband. How would you react? Do you approve of these actions? I think not.

Would you approve if the movie was set in the 500 BC time frame, but disapprove if it was set at a later date? What does it matter when the movie was set? Slavery is slavery, no matter when it happens. And it seems to me that slavery is wrong.

Look, the movie is still playing. Here comes the slave-girl’s father walking down the path. Look closely, I think I see something. Yes, look at his coat. See it? It is pure wool! He has obeyed Deuteronomy 22. He has not mixed two kinds of fabric in his coat. Does this change your view of this man? Does the material of his coat change your attitude toward him? No? Then why does the Bible condemn people who wear the wrong combination of fabrics, while allowing slavery to continue? Do you really believe there was a time when slavery was fine but mixing materials in your clothing was sinful?

One of the worst practices conceived by humans was the act of owning slaves. And yet the Bible allows it. Although term limits were imposed on male Hebrew slaves, the same rights were not given to people of other nations. In Lev. 25:44-46 we read:

44’As for your male and female slaves whom you may have–you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45’Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46’You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Is not something very wrong with this book? How can you carry a book to church that allows slavery? Do you want your children to read this book?

​Which of these is a better moral guide? Hamanist Manifesto III Deuteronomy

Death

There is a long list of sins in the Old Testament that carry the punishment of death, including homosexuality, adultery, and cursing parents. For instance:

9’If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him. 10If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death…13′ If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Lev. 20:9-10,13)

Do you suggest that we follow these commands, and kill such people? Or are these verses mistaken?

Was the law intended to be temporary?

I do not think you follow these commands to kill the adulteress. I do not think you follow the law that says to not mix fabrics. You have a low view of such laws.

Then Isaiah has something to say to you. He says you have no dawn! In Isaiah 8 he calls us to the law saying, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”(Isaiah 8:20 )

Isaiah has diagnosed you. You don’t follow these commands? Ok, then Isaiah says you have no dawn.

You disagree with Isaiah, don’t you?

Yes, I expect you will tell me that Isaiah’s message to keep the law was only temporary, that the Old Testament system was given only to help people until the gospel would arrive. If the Old Testament was temporary, why doesn’t it say so? Repeatedly the Old Testament declares that this system is to last forever. For instance:

Psalm 119:60 The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.

2 Kings 17:37 The statutes and the ordinances and the law and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall observe to do forever ; and you shall not fear other gods.

Of course the law referred to in the above verses is the only law they had, that of Moses. But you disagree that this law is forever, don’t you? You don’t think that the law against wearing mixed fabrics or the law commanding the killing of those who curse parents is eternal, do you?

What about those verses above that call these ordinances are everlasting? Are they wrong?

The New Testament

Let’s look at an example from the New Testament. Luke 6:30 says, “Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.” Do you give to everyone that asks of you? If you do indeed follow this, and give to everybody that asks of you, then what if I ask you for everything you have? I suspect that everybody will refuse to give me everything they have.

But Luke says we are to give to everyone that asks.

It doesn’t matter what Luke says, does it? Common sense says this is not a good command. So we ignore the written code, and go by our common sense. This indicates to me that our ultimate source of moral guidance comes from reason, not from the Bible.

People tell me Luke does not mean to give to everyone that asks–even though he says so–but that he is only asking us to be generous. Well, I agree that we should be generous. If this was the point, then that is what the writer should have said. He could have said, “Be generous” instead of saying, “give to everyone who asks”. In that he must surely be mistaken.

New Testament morality has many problems. Luke 14:26 tells us we cannot be disciples unless we hate our father, mother, and children. What kind of family values is that? And no, you cannot get around that verse by telling me that it means “love less” instead of “hate.” If the author meant “love less” why didn’t he say what he meant?

Matt.10:34 says, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Do you agree that the world needs yet another sword?

How should a guest treat a host? Some might respond by asking, “What would Jesus do?” Well, what would Jesus do?

Now when He had spoken, a Pharisee asked Him to have lunch with him; and He went in, and reclined at the table. When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness. You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?” ( Luke 11:37-40a)

So, we find that, if Luke is to be believed, Jesus was sitting as a guest in a man’s home. His host was surprised that Jesus did not ceremonially wash his hands. And we are told that Jesus insulted his host. Is this the proper way to treat your host? If you were invited to dinner, you would not respond to your host with insults like this, would you? Is this the way you want your children to act when they are away from home?

And then there is the command of Romans 13:1-2 to obey the government, all government.

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

If we were to follow these verses, then we would be forced to always obey our government. And so it would have been wrong for the Northern Alliance to defy the Taliban, the American revolutionaries to declare independence from the British, and the people of the Soviet Union to resist Stalin. But most of us seem to honor someone who rebelled against a government. It seems to me that we allow them to ignore the verses because we know reason is a better source of moral instruction than biblical literalism.

Some will tell me that these verses are only a general rule to follow government, and that the command to obey God rather than man can override this rule. But notice the language of Romans 13. “Every person is to be in subjection…There is no authority except from God…whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God.” That clearly includes everyone and every government.

Now, if the author had intended to say that most people should be in subjection to most governments, that most authority is from God, and that most people who resist the authority resist God, he could have said that. If he was trying to convey that idea with the words he wrote, then the author was incompetent. He should have said what he meant. He does not say there are a few authorities not from God. He says there is no authority except from God.

When he emphasizes the universality of the command multiple times, how can people just ignore it and say he is only referring to some authorities? If we read what it says, it must apply to all authority. It must be saying that the French Resistance to Hitler, and the American Revolution from England were wrong.

That is how it goes. People regularly ignore the Bible if it is not to their liking. They assume it must not mean what it clearly says. Wouldn’t it be more honest to accept that it means what it says, but it is wrong?

Atrocities

It gets worse.

Imagine that your child comes home from Sunday school and shows you the handout he was given. It says, “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.” It shows a picture of a baby being thrown against a rock with his head splitting open. How do you react? I am sure that you would be upset with that literature. You would never want your children to be taught this, would you? But, if your children carry a Bible to church, they carry those verses with them (Psalm 137:8-9). And those verses teach that the act of throwing babies against rocks is blessed.

Those are two of the verses your children carry with them in the big black book they carry to Sunday School. Don’t worry, your child will never actually be taught those verses in Sunday school. Those verses never seem to make the cut.

How can a holy book praise people that smash babies against the rocks? Yes, I understand that the writer was angry against his Babylonian captors. I can empathize with his anger against the soldiers, slave drivers, and political leaders. I understand the hurt. But how can he say it was blessed to kill Babylonian babies? You surely do not approve of going to your enemy and killing his baby as an act of revenge, do you? Isn’t that an act of terrorism? Why does the Bible praise this? I would say that this writer is morally confused. I would say he is praising something wrong.

If this were the only problem, I might be able to overlook it. But there are so many morally troubling verses. Do you doubt that? I have a suggestion. Tonight, start at Genesis and start reading. Ignore the commentaries. Ignore the chapter headings. I am asking you to do what your pastor would ask you to do. Get into the word. Read it for yourself. You will be surprised.

About the Holy Bible by Robert Ingersoll Abraham and Isaac by Bruce Gerencser

Bible Morality Links

The Plagues of Egypt

As another example, think about the story of the Passover. Moses keeps asking Pharaoh to let the people go from their bondage. Pharaoh refuses. Finally, according to the story, God comes up with a plan that breaks Pharaoh’s will to fight. It involves sending an angel to kill all of the firstborn in Egypt. And we are told that this is exactly what happened–“There was a great cry in Egypt, for there was no home where there was not someone dead.” (Ex.12:30) No home survived? What a slaughter.

Maybe I should not play Monday morning quarterback–I was not there–but an idea comes to mind. Wouldn’t it have been easier to threaten to kill Pharaoh? If he doesn’t respond, kill him. Suppose his successor maintained the evil bondage. Ok, then you kill the next Pharaoh. How many Pharaohs do you need to kill until one of them will listen and end the brutal slavery? How do you like that plan? Isn’t that more humane than killing thousands of innocent babies? Why not?

Imagine that you are watching the evening news. You see a picture of a missile being skillfully guided so that it misses the enemy bunker and slams into an orphanage. The reporter tells you that this is exactly where the missile was supposed to hit. The reporter describes the precision that was necessary to avoid the tanks and hit the babies. He tells you that these tactics will demoralize the opposition leaders and cause them to submit to our requests. How would you react? You would be outraged, wouldn’t you? When civilized countries fight modern warfare, they take special precautions to avoid killing babies.

But what happened in Exodus? If we believe the Bible, the big blow deliberately missed Pharaoh, missed the army command-and-control, and missed the slave drivers. Instead, we are told it was aimed specifically at the children. This is good? This is moral? Can you understand how I have come to the opinion that the writer of this passage was mistaken?

Slaughter of the Amalekites

The slaughter of babies was a constant theme in the Old Testament. Repeatedly we are told that God sanctioned the slaughter of babies. For instance, in I Samuel 15 we read:

Then Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD. 2″Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 ‘Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Can you imagine the gruesome scene (assuming it actually happened as recorded)? Hundreds of children would have been killed with the sword as they fled or cowered into a corner. Can you support such actions?

Suppose you had been a soldier in Saul’s army. Would you have willingly and gladly thrust your sword through a child’s heart? Would you have willingly chased a fleeing six-year-old girl from the scene, ignored her screams, and cut off her head? If you would not do this willingly, then deep inside you must know that the action described is wrong. Can you then see why many think the Bible is mistaken to sanction such things?

Some will tell me that the killing of babies was okay, for God sanctioned it. But how do they know God sanctioned it? Isn’t it possible that the writer was mistaken when he wrote that God said this?

Christian Moral Relativism

Defenders of the Bible often resort to extreme moral relativism when they try to defend such verses. They try to declare that there is no intrinsic difference between right and wrong, and that all that matters is obeying God. So, if the voice of God were to sanction rape, murder, slavery, or torture, they see no problem with doing those things. To them morality is all about obeying the rules and has nothing to do with what is best.

But if this is the attitude they have, then they would equally follow an evil tyrant God as they would a good God. For if there is no intrinsic difference between right and wrong, if all that matters is that we perform our duty as directed from above, if there is no value in questioning whether the act is right, one would then be forced to follow a God even if he commanded the most horribly depraved deeds.

No, it seems to me that some things are indeed bad. Killing innocent babies is bad. And 1 Samuel commands the killing of innocent babies. Is not this passage wrong?

If a friend told you he heard a voice from the sky claiming to be God and telling him to kill babies, you would not tell him to do it, would you? You would doubt that it really was God who was speaking, wouldn’t you? You would be skeptical of the claim that this was God. Why do you not have the same skepticism when you approach I Samuel 15? For we have found no reason to assume this passage is inspired by God. Is it possible that this writer was mistaken when he thought God was sanctioning the killing of babies?

Which is more likely? That the author was mistaken when he thought God was commanding him to kill babies, or that a sovereign God of the universe was commanding the slaughter of innocent babies?

Many of us have concluded that the writers of the Bible often presented a depraved morality.

The Good Parts

You may want to tell me that the Bible has many good parts. I agree. But much of the good teaching of the Bible is also found in other books that were written before the Bible. For instance, here is the Golden Rule as taught by others before Jesus:

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary. (Talmud, Shabbat 31a – thirteenth century B.C.)

Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness: Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you. (Analects 15:23 – sixth century B.C.)

May I do to others as I would that they should do to me. (Plato, fourth century B.C.)

So, we find that many people taught the Golden Rule long before Jesus. The Bible was not original when it proposed this idea. There have been many good books about morals.

I am for high moral standards. I am in favor of kindness, and love, and the rule of law. I am not convinced that the standard of morality that I see in the Bible is better than the standard that I reach by reason. That is why I choose reason.

Here’s the link to this article by Merle Hertzler.

As we have seen, parts of our Bibles are probably mistaken. But what about the original source? I was taught to believe that holy men of God wrote down the Bible as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Is this what happened? Is the Bible in its essence the words of God?

Now this is a rather extraordinary claim–that a mere book represents the words of God. We should expect that some would be skeptical about that claim, yes? After all, you yourself are probably skeptical of the claim that the Quran or the Book of Mormon is the word of God. You demand more than a simple assertion. You would like some real evidence. Very well then. It also seems to me that, if one wants people to believe the Bible is God’s inspired word, one needs to have a good reason why we should believe it.

Why Believe in Inspiration?

So why should we believe that the Bible is God’s Word? II Timothy 3:16 comes to mind: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” So here we have a claim. But a claim is not proof.

I think that II Timothy 3:16 does not count as significant evidence that the Bible is God’s word. First, we don’t know what books the author is referring to as scripture. He does not tell us. What do you think he refers to? The 66 books of the Protestant Bible? What makes you think he means those books? Unless he defines what he is talking about, how can we know what books he thinks are inspired?

Second, the passage has alternate translations. It could mean, “All scripture that is inspired of God is profitable.” In other words, it could simply mean that God has had a hand in certain books, and that they are worth reading. It may not even be claiming verbal inspiration or that the books are more inspired than other inspiring reading that you might find.

And finally, the author may be mistaken. After all, we don’t even know who wrote this book.

Oh yes, many will tell me that Paul wrote II Timothy. But could someone else have written it? After all, it was a common practice in those days to write a book and claim that some famous person had written it. The books could have been falsely attributed to Paul.

The vocabulary of these books does not match the rest of Paul’s writings, but rather, is similar to second century writings.[1] This book is never mentioned by the early church fathers, even though other books of Paul are frequently referenced. It appears that this book had not even been written until years after Paul. If you think Paul wrote it, why?

Even if you could show that Paul wrote it, we could argue that he could have been mistaken when he wrote this. Paul, after all, was human, and humans are sometimes mistaken.

Can you understand why many do not think that quoting this verse proves that the 66 books in your Bible are inspired?

The odd thing to me is that no book of the New Testament specifically claims to be inspired (with the possible exception of Revelation.)

Let’s look at one example. In Romans 1 we read, “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God… to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints.” Now, according to Evangelical thinking, this book is not just expressing Paul’s thoughts. It is expressing the very thoughts of God. But where does the book say this?

Imagine that you were in the church of Rome and you received this personal letter from Paul. You would, of course, be thrilled to have a lengthy letter from this leader of your faith. But would you consider this letter to be the writings of God? You read right there that Paul wrote it. Nowhere does it say that God wrote it. Nowhere does Romans claim that Paul was merely the vehicle that God used to express his thoughts. And we have no record that the recipients thought this book was written by God.

Now look at the end of the book: In Rom 16:22 it says, “I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.”

Okay, so perhaps Paul didn’t do the writing, but he dictated it to a scribe. Imagine the chain of command–God told Paul what to write, Paul told Tertius, and Tertius wrote it down. Isn’t it possible that something was lost in transmission?

And how did Romans 16:22 get there? Was Paul dictating these words–“And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you… I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.” Can you imagine what Tertius would have said if he was taking dictation and Paul had said “I Tertius”? It’s just not natural. So, most likely Tertius wrote this verse on his own.

Did God switch modes, so that he was now inspiring Tertius instead of Paul? If so, why didn’t God just inspire Tertius in the first place, and leave Paul out of the loop? Or did Tertius just inject this verse on his own? If so, how many other verses did Tertius insert?

Regardless, we find that Paul takes credit for the book, and Tertius steps in and takes credit for his contribution, but somehow, they didn’t think it was important to mention that God was the author. Why would the book give credit to the channel (Paul) and the scribe (Tertius) and fail to mention the author (God)? How odd. If God wrote this, wouldn’t he have taken the credit?

Thus saith the Lord

Oh, but people will tell me that the Old Testament prophets often wrote, “Thus saith the Lord.” Does this prove that those verses are quotes from God? I think not. How would we know that the prophets were not just pretending that God said those things? Many prophets were doing that. You can read about them in Jeremiah 23. Jeremiah writes,

16 Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD… 21″I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied. (Jer 23:16,21)

These prophets said, “Thus saith the Lord,” but Jeremiah says that they were lying. What do you think these other prophets said about Jeremiah? That’s right. They probably said that the Lord told them Jeremiah was lying. So, who was right? Can you see that merely claiming that God says something does not prove that the writer is correct?

To convince a skeptic that he is wrong, you will need to do more than state that you are right, and he is wrong. You will need evidence. What evidence do you have that the Bible is inspired? Many Christians have proposed evidence, including claimed prophetic fulfillment, miraculous biblical unity, and the Bible’s life-changing power. Do these things prove that the book is inspired? We are here to ask questions. Let’s ask.

Prophecy

One of the most frequently used arguments for the Bible’s inspiration is the claim of fulfilled prophecy. We are told that the writers miraculously predicted many things years before they happened. Let us look at some claimed examples.

One of the most famous is Micah 5:2, “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”

We are told that this verse predicted that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. But does it say that? First, look at whom this verse is talking about. Look at the context. We find more about this ruler in verses 5 and 6,

This One will be our peace. When the Assyrian invades our land, When he tramples on our citadels, Then we will raise against him Seven shepherds and eight leaders of men. They will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword, The land of Nimrod at its entrances; And He will deliver us from the Assyrian When he attacks our land And when he tramples our territory.

Micah wrote during the time of Assyrian dominance and writes of somebody who will conquer Assyria. Does this sound like a description of Jesus? Did Jesus deliver “from the Assyrian?” No. So apparently the man spoken of in Micah 5–the one that was to come out of Bethlehem and defeat Assryia– is not even Jesus.

Some might argue that this verse could be taken figuratively, that Jesus symbolically defeated the Assyrian tyranny. But how many other people could be said to have figurative conquered Assyrian tyranny? Churchill, Washington, and Martin Luther King come to mind. In fact, thousands of people can be said to have figuratively conquered Assyria. So how can you be sure this is talking about Jesus? And if the conquest of Assryia is not to be taken literally, how do we know that “Bethlehem” is to be taken literally? If we are allowed to use figurative interpretations, hundreds of towns might figurative be Bethlehem, the city of David.

There is a second problem. The verse is probably not even referring to the town of Bethlehem, but to a man named Bethlehem, the descendent of Ephratah. I Chron 4:4 speaks of this man, “These were the sons of Hur, the first-born of Ephrathah and father of Bethlehem.” Now the “prophecy” in Micah refers to Bethlehem Ephratah. Sounds like Micah is describing a descendant of Bethlehem Ephratah, not a citizen of a town.

Third, how do we even know where Jesus was born? Sure, Matthew and Luke said he was born in Bethlehem, but could they have been mistaken? Or could the books have been altered to make it look like Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

It is no use arguing that the gospels are correct because they are inspired. That is the point we are trying to determine. Unless we can prove they are inspired, we cannot simply assume the issue under consideration. That would be arguing in a circle. So, the books could possibly be wrong on this point.

And, other than these two books–which conflict on the details–we have no record of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. So maybe the writers made this up so they could show a fulfillment of prophecy as they understood it. Once more, we have reason to be less than impressed with this prophecy.

So, I don’t find Micah 5:2 to be an impressive prophecy about Jesus.

How about Isaiah 53? This tells about a suffering servant. Many think it predicts Jesus. Again, let’s look at the passage in context. Notice the language.

3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

It seems to be talking about somebody in the past, that is, before Isaiah. “He was despised…was wounded…was bruised.”

The theme of the suffering servant appears throughout Isaiah 40 through 55. When Isaiah refers to this suffering servant, it appears he is talking about the nation of Israel. For instance, in Isaiah 44:1-2 :

1″But now listen, O Jacob, My servant, And Israel, whom I have chosen: 2Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, ‘Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

We find that Jacob (Israel) is referred to as a servant. This theme is repeated throughout the later part of Isaiah. The passage could be telling us nothing more than that the nation of Israel suffered for the sins of the people. This passage could have nothing to do with a future savior. Perhaps Isaiah was not even writing a prophecy.

​ Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled by Farrell Till The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah by Jim Lippard A Chassidic Rabbi Makes a Startling Discovery By Moshe Shulman A humorous look at how easy it is to make a past saying sound prophetic.

Prophesy Links

Do you think the prophecies of the Bible are impressive? May I suggest a way to check this claim out for yourself? Start at the Psalms and read through to the end of the prophets. Lay aside the commentaries and chapter headings. Every time you see something that might be a prophecy of Christ, ask yourself if this is really prophesying a future event. Is the prophecy so vague it really predicts nothing? Is it talking about a contemporaneous event, and not even talking about the future? Is the reference so cryptic that it takes a specially trained eye to pick it out of context? Would God hide things like that? Read it from the perspective of a person who has never heard of Jesus. Would he be expected from these verses to know that some particular event would happen in the life of Jesus? I think you will find that the claimed prophecies melt away when you do this.

I remember the first time I read the book of Isaiah. I was excited to read all of those marvelous prophecies in context. What a surprise it was to read what was actually in the book. The “prophecies” come rather unexpectedly, in passages that are totally unrelated to Jesus. And most of the book consists of long diatribes about ancient affairs that mean little to modern people. I am not making this up. You can see it for yourself. Simply pick the Bible off the shelf and read the book of Isaiah.

Before we move on, let’s look at one more prophecy claim. In Zechariah 11 we read:

2 I said to them, “If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!” So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 3Then the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.” So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.Zechariah 11:12-13

Now this has been claimed to be a marvelous prophecy of the fee paid to Judas. If this is a prophecy, then God has hidden it well. We find it is again written in the past tense. It tells the story of a discouraged shepherd trying to lead Israel. Having given up, he asks for his wages and throws the money to the potter. Now in what way does this represent Judas? The story simply doesn’t match. If Judas happened to receive the same wage as the man in the story, that is a coincidence. How is that a prophecy? You see, if one tries to find little matches between any two stories, one can usually do it. But that does not prove that the first story prophesied the second. (See, for instance, the “startling discovery” made by a rabbi in the sidebar above.)

Even if a story in the New Testament has parallels to something in the Old Testament that does not prove the Old Testament was prophetic. It is possible that the writers of the New Testament slanted the story to make it match what they read in the Old Testament.

It is no use claiming that the New Testament is right because it is inspired. That is the point in question. You cannot prove the Bible is inspired by assuming it is inspired.

So, if fallible men wrote the gospels, maybe their bias influenced how they told the story. In many places the New Testament says something happened “that it might be fulfilled” and then it references some passage in the Old Testament. So, if the writer knew about the Old Testament passage, and wanted to show a fulfillment, isn’t it possible that he slanted the story?

It turns out that the only sources we have for any of the details that are claimed to be fulfillment of messianic prophecy are the New Testament writers themselves. Could these writers have been biased? I find no clearly unbiased sources verifying the 30 pieces of silver, the birth in Bethlehem, the virgin birth, or any of the other claimed fulfillment. Once more, those who claim miraculous fulfillment have little support.

Even if you would find an impressive prophecy, does that prove that all 66 books of the Bible are inspired? Suppose you find an impressive prophecy by Nostradamus. Would that prove that all books in a collection that includes his book are inspired of God? Of course not. Would it prove that the book that the prophecy is written in is God-inspired? I doubt if you would conclude that. So even if you do find an impressive messianic prophecy– I have not yet found one– you are far from proving that all 66 books of the Protestant Bible are inspired by God.

Unity

Others have tried to claim that the Bible must be inspired since, in their opinion, the Bible has a tremendous unity of theme. They say that 40 authors wrote over a period of 1500 years and yet they put together a completely unified book. But is this true? It does not look consistent to me.

How can the Old Testament writers spend many chapters listing genealogies, while Titus 3:9 states that genealogies are unprofitable and worthless? Are Paul and Moses working in unity? Are they teaching the same gospel?

Or how can Matthew and Luke record the life of Christ without recording any instance of Jesus making the fantastic claims we read in the book of John? Are they presenting the same message?

Why do we find the constant emphasis in the Old Testament on the Jewish nation, only to find out in the New Testament that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles? Is this a perfect work of harmony?

Perhaps you can find ways to fit the Bible together. Fine, but understand that many others have found ways of fitting it all together and their way does not match yours. For instance, some can interpret the Bible to be in accord with Calvinism, but others find it to be consistent with Arminianism or something in between. Some find biblical consistency that teaches us to ignore the Jewish laws such as Sabbath (Saturday) worship; others find a consistency that requires us to keep the Jewish Sabbath. Some find the Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith alone; some find that it teaches faith plus works. Some find the Bible to be consistently pre-millennial; others find it to be consistently amillennial or post-millennial. If the Bible is a miraculous unity, why do Christians have so much trouble figuring out what it is united about?

Calvinism and Arminianism One example of two incompatible views that both claim to fit the whole Bible together.

You will have a hard time convincing skeptics that this is a miraculous work of unity. So, the argument from unity is not a good argument for evangelists to use with informed people.

Power

Others point to the power of the book to change lives. That may be. But other books have had a powerful influence on people also. Does the influence of the book prove that God wrote it? I think not.

Others will tell me that it is amazing that the Bible survived history. But how does that prove inspiration? Is that not rather tribute to the fanaticism with which many accepted this book?

In conclusion, I find that the arguments from prophecy, unity, and power are not very convincing.

Should I Just Have Faith?

You may tell me that we will never prove the Bible is inspired, so we should just take it by faith. So, what should I say when my Catholic friends tell me to take it by faith that they are right? What should I say when the Mormons say to take the Book of Mormon by faith? What about the robed hippie on the streets that wants me to have faith in his way? It seems to me that I should ask them the same question that I ask here: Do you have convincing evidence that your source is an accurate record of God’s thoughts? I need a reason.

You want me to take it by faith–should I have faith in every verse? What about Leviticus 11:21-22? It tells me that grasshoppers walk on four legs. Should I try to have faith that this is true? How can I do that? Grasshoppers, like all insects, have six legs. I could try to have faith that grasshoppers have four legs as this verse says. But I have a scientific mind. And I can’t help but count the grasshopper’s legs. And my faith gets weak the moment the count reaches five.

Anything else about the Good Book?

Notes:

1. Kirby, Peter, I Timothy

Copyright Merle Hertzler 2002, 2005. All rights reserved.

Here’s the link to this article by Merle Hertzler.

Before reading Hertzler’s article, look carefully at what the Southern Baptist Convention says about the Holy Bible:

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

(excerpted from the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, here) :

And, read what a local church, Mount Vernon Baptist says about the Bible:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. 

Church website, here.

They’re the same. Right? Now, look under the hood by reading Hertzler’s article.

We have seen how I have come to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, and that we humans are the product of evolution. Many of you might see the value of my arguments from science, but you keep wondering how this all fits in with the Bible. Does not the Bible teach specific creation in 6 days? Well, yes, it does. That is literally what it says.

In response, many have found ways to interpret the Bible in a way that is consistent with evolution. I have read their arguments and somehow, I am not convinced. It seems to me that Genesis conflicts with science. So, I turn now to another question: “Is it possible that the Bible is mistaken about creation?”

Now I am sure that this question raises a few eyebrows. How dare I question the Bible? Is not the Bible infallible?

I am sorry, but it does seem like a good question to ask. So let us ask it. After all, if we were to declare all questions about the Bible to be off limits, how would we ever know how the book would stand if questioned? If the book is indeed inerrant, shouldn’t the case for the book be even stronger after it is questioned and found to stand firm?

Similarly, some have told me that the Quran is without errors. Should I accept what they say, and never question the assertion? Surely it must be okay to question the Quran. If I may question the Quran or the Book of Mormon, then why would you object to me questioning the Bible?

And so, rather than resolving the conflict between Genesis and science by creative reinterpretation of scripture, perhaps we could ask if Genesis could be mistaken. It is a good question. And I see no harm in asking. Could the Bible have some errors? If it does, then perhaps Genesis 1 is in error.

Errors?

I have read the entire Bible six times. Whenever I read the Bible, it does not take long to find something that does not look right to me. By example, Lev. 11:4-6 says, “‘Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud…the camel…the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.”

Wait, what? Rabbits don’t chew their cud. Something is wrong here. Have we found a mistake?

Believers will argue that this passage is not mistaken. Some have told me that rabbits can ingest their feces, and this has some similarities to chewing the cud. Well, perhaps, but this verse does not say that rabbits do an action similar to chewing the cud. It says they chew the cud. And the original Hebrew is even stronger. The words literally mean, “bring up the cud,” In no sense does a rabbit bring up the cud.

Others have told me that rabbits move their mouth to look like they are chewing the cud, and this is what the verse means. If this is the case, then the writer is mistaken. He doesn’t say they look like they chew the cud. He says they chew their cud. This statement would not be true if they merely looked like they were chewing the cud.

Others have suggested that this refers to an extinct rabbit that used to chew its cud. But we find no evidence for such a rabbit. If the writer intended modern readers to read this verse, wouldn’t he explain that he is referring to an extinct animal that is not to be confused with modern rabbits?

Not only does the verse appear to be wrong, but it appears to be rather pointless. Why do we need a verse forbidding rabbit stew? Hunters simply ignore this command. Why does the Bible condemn rabbit stew?

But some will look at these verses and explain to me that this is one small detail that we do not understand. They will tell me that God knows the solution, and that I should move past this small question to get into the big truths of the Bible.

Now if this was the only such problem, explanations like this might be acceptable. But alas, I find many similar problems in the Bible. In addition, when I look at the explanations that believing scholars have offered to defend these verses, I find much of their reasoning is just as contrived as the explanations for the rabbit verse.

Now if I am to believe that the Bible is inerrant, I must either believe such wild explanations in every case, or I must accept that at least one error could exist in the Bible.

Let’s look at another example of an apparent error. I Kings 4:26 says Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.”

But II Chronicles disagrees. It tells us, “Now Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots and 12,000 horsemen.” (II Chronicles 9:25 )

So was it 4000 stalls, or 40,000? One of these verses must be wrong. Do you agree?

Granted, these issues seem trivial. Who cares how many stalls Solomon had? Who cares if rabbits actually chew their cud? What does it matter?

It matters to me. In each case, at least one of these verses must be wrong. If these are in error, then the Bible is not inerrant, and it is not perfect. If one of these verses is in error, we would need to conclude that the Bible we are reading is imperfect.

Errant Copies

However, some of you will not agree. You will tell me that God inspired the writers of the Bible to write his perfect word. Even if one believes this, he does not necessarily need to believe that the Bible he holds has no errors. After all, he is not holding the original copy that was said to be inspired.

In fact, leading Evangelical scholars often admit that the Bibles they hold may have errors.

For instance, the conservative Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirms that the scriptures are the authoritative Word of God, but includes this caveat: “Copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”

Do you see what these authorities are saying? You may hold a copy or a translation of the original in your hands. But you do not hold the original. They declare such copies are the authoritative Word of God only to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. In other words, they are admitting that the copy you hold in your hands might not always faithfully represent the original. Where your copy differs from the original, it might not be authoritative; it might not be inerrant; and it might not be the exact Word of God. This caveat blows the whole claim of inerrancy wide open. The copy you hold in your hands might be mistaken.

Surely this is a reason to question claims of inerrancy. Nobody has the originals. Nobody knows what was written there. Yes, one can claim that the originals were perfect, but we can never test that claim unless we were to see an exact representation of the original. If we cannot test the claim, nobody can be sure it is true. So, we will have to settle for the copies that we have, and they might be flawed. If your copy does not faithfully represent the original, then most Evangelical scholars would say your copy could be in error at that point.

Nobody knows exactly where her copy differs from the original. Therefore, nobody knows for sure if what she is reading might be mistaken.

Now let’s look at how those errors might have gotten there.

Translation Errors

First, translation errors have occurred. After all, we have many translations and they sometimes conflict with each other. Are all of those translations perfect? I doubt that anybody makes that claim. Are some of those translations perfect? If one was, how would we know it?

Most Christians acknowledge that all the translators are human. They may have made a few mistakes. Your translation may have errors.

Text Selection

The problem goes deeper. Which text are we going to translate from? There are thousands of manuscript copies, with thousands of differences. There are 1438 significant disputed readings in the New Testament alone, not including spelling errors. [1] No two manuscripts of any significant length agree on everything. So which manuscript will you select? Why should we use the one that you choose? If they all differ, and you have no good reason for declaring one to be perfect, then the one you select probably has errors.

Most translations recognize that no manuscript is perfect, so they use a document that is a combination of many texts. Scholars analyze the passages that differ and try to select the reading that has the greatest support in the available manuscripts. Do you know if they have made the right choices? They probably have good reasons for their choices. That is not the question. Are they perfect in their choices? Probably not.

For example, in II Sam 21:8, some translations speak of the five sons of Saul’s daughter Merab. Other translations translate it as the sons of a different daughter, Michal. Why the difference? Some translations have a footnote explaining this. For instance, the English Standard Version tells us that two Hebrew manuscripts and the Greek Septuagint support the reading Merab. But it also notes that most Hebrew manuscripts read Michal. Which is correct? How would you possibly know?

The difference is important. Why? Because II Samuel 6:23 tells us that “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.” So, if chapter 21 is indeed telling us that Michal had 5 children, how can she have had no children to the day of her death? The reading Michal in chapter 21 is supported by the most manuscripts. But if that reading is correct, then we have a contradiction with chapter 6.

You see the issue. Translators could either follow the majority of manuscripts, and translate II Sam 21:8 as Michal. But then they have a contradiction with chapeter 6. Or they could follow the 2 manuscripts that say Merab in chapter 21. Presto! Contradiction gone. But is the choice Merab justified based on only 2 manuscripts?

Regardless of which word choice is correct, we all can see the dilemma. The translators had to choose between the available manuscripts. Do they follow the majority of manuscripts that say Michal, or do they follow the few that say Merab? If they choose wrong, the Bible they give us is not matching what the original said.

So, a possible source of error is that translators selected the wrong manuscripts.

Possibly they even followed the temptation to deliberately choose the less supported reading in order to put the Bible in its best light. After all, if they wanted to sell Bibles, they would need to consider that their readers wanted a version without this contradiction in it. Did this bias affect the manuscripts they chose?

Your Bible may sometimes be using the wrong source.

Copies of Copies

How did all of those differences end up in the various manuscripts? Well, first there are copying errors. Scribes copied documents by hand, and sometimes made mistakes.

But there is another reason that the copies differ. Perhaps the scribes were not honest. Perhaps they changed the text on purpose.

For instance, it looks like 1 John 5:7 was inserted many years later. How do we know this? No Greek manuscript before 1500 AD had this verse. None. It appears certain that this verse was added after that date. Was it an accident? I doubt it. How does one accidentally insert a whole verse into the Bible? Most likely somebody did it on purpose. The verse became popular and was included in many copies, eventually becoming incorporated into the King James Version. But modern scholars do not recognize it. If you have a modern translation, that verse is probably missing, or a footnote indicates that it is doubtful. Somebody inserted it years later.

Another example is Mark 16:9-20. These verses do not appear in the earliest manuscripts we have. Were they added later? Again, modern Bibles indicate they probably were. They suggest that somebody came along and added 12 verses to Mark. Now, when I was growing up, these 12 verses were still in the Bible. Preachers preached that it was wrong to remove these verses from the Bible. Now we carry around Bibles that say they probably don’t belong. Times have changed.

All of this causes me to question. What other insertions have been made to the Bible? We don’t know. The above insertions can be detected because they were made many years after the Bible was written. Other copies existed when the change was made, and so we now have copies that differ. But what about changes that were made before copies were widely distributed? It would have been easy to make changes the first couple of times that the book was copied, and such changes might appear in all surviving manuscripts. You may think that people had too much respect for the Bible to alter it, but the examples above indicate otherwise. People have tinkered with the Bible.

Will our grandchildren find that additional verses in our copies need to be deleted or changed? Will they delete those verses just like we have deleted the ending of Mark; the ending that our grandparents thought surely belonged there?

In conclusion, it seems we need to admit that things have been added to the Bible. This is another source of error.

The Canon

There are other reasons that errors might be there. Even if we assume that God has specifically inspired books of the Bible to be error-free, how do we know which books he has selected to be part of that error-free Bible? Do Hebrews and Revelation belong there? How about Macabees? The Shepherd of Hermas? The Epistle of James? The Epistle of Barnabas? Daniel? These books were all disputed for years. There were many books to choose from. Which ones belong?

The Protestant Bible with its 66 books is so familiar, it is easy to assume that these books were always joined together as one book. They were not. Christians have had many canons (the collection of inspired books). Which canon is correct? Are you sure you are using the right one?

We find no reference to a specific set of books anywhere in the writings of the church before 140 AD. We find only scattered references to tradition and to some of the books. Nobody seems to have gathered the inspired books into a common collection. Why not? Would not the followers of Peter and Paul want to gather the inspired writings together? Would not someone make a list of these books? Would not the Christians want to know which were genuine, which were inspired, and which were not? We find no such list.

In fact, many of the books of the New Testament are almost completely unknown before 100 AD. It appears that the early Christians did not think that these were special, inspired books. Clement of Rome, for instance, a leader in the Church at Rome at the end of the 1st century, appears to be completely unaware of the four gospels. Apparently, the whole idea of recognizing an authoritative set of books–the “canon”–did not occur until years later.

Marcion wrote the first surviving New Testament canon around 150 AD. It consisted of one gospel, the Diatessaron, (which we no longer have) and ten epistles. Was he mistaken? But his is the earliest canon on record. How do you know that the later canons are better?

Around 200 AD, the scholarly Clement of Alexandria recognized Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Traditions of Matthias, Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didakhe, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation, and various oral traditions. This is quite different from the modern list. Was he wrong?

Then there was the Muratorian Canon (date unknown) which lists the 4 gospels, Acts, the Apocalypse of John (not to be confused with Revelation), the Apocalypse of Peter, the Book of Wisdom, and all the epistles accepted today except for Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John. Once again, this is far from the list that is recognized today. What is wrong? Why are we finding no lists that look close to today’s lists?

Then there was a list from around 300 AD. It includes the four gospels, Acts, the Acts of Paul, 10 of Paul’s 13 epistles, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, James, Jude, 1,2, and 3 John, Barnabas, Hermas, Apocalypse of John, and the Apocalypse of Peter. Again, we find many books that modern Christians exclude. Many books from today’s list are missing.

The lists differ. Modern Christians say none of these lists are correct.[2 ] How is it that none of these early Christians got it right? None of the canons from the first 3 centuries is close to ours.

Later developments of the canon began to approach the list we now recognize. In 327 AD Eusebius recognized the four gospels, Acts, the Epistles of Paul (possibly including Hebrews), 1 Peter, 1 John, and the (now unrecognized) Apocalypse of John. He lists some texts separately as disputed texts including the now accepted books of James, Jude 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. He also lists as “disputed” the Acts of Paul, Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Hebrews, Teachings of the Apostles, and the Apoclypse of John, none of which we recognize today. (Confusingly he lists the Apocalypse of John in both lists.)

The Codex Sinaiticus, a surviving manuscript of the whole New Testament from that period–possibly by Eusebius himself–includes the 27 books we now recognize, as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and Hermas. The surviving document ends in the middle of Hermas, so we don’t know if it originally included any other books.

In 350 AD Bishop Cyril issued an official pronouncement declaring that there were 26 books in the New Testament. He did not include Revelation. So, by 350 AD we are finding canons that are very close to modern canons, but still nobody has yet mentioned the exact list we have today. And this is over 300 years after the reported life of Christ.

All of these canons consist of the opinion of one person only. We do not have a single list that was published by a council of leading church officials before 363 AD, when the Synod of Laodicea decreed that there were 26 books in the New Testament. They excluded Revelation. So, we finally have a group pronouncement. But modern Christians would say they got it wrong! Their list differs from today’s list, for it leaves out Revelation. Do you think they made the wrong decision? If so, how do you know that you are right, and they were wrong?

In 367 AD Athanasius declared that there were not 26, but 27 books in the New Testament. His list matches the list that we have today. Finally! But it is only the stated opinion of one man. No church organization has yet endorsed this list as the correct one.

Finally, in 393AD, 397 AD, and 419 AD three councils met and confirmed this list. These councils represented the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which had taken control. They were able to force their will over most of Christendom. Does that make them right? No? So why does your Bible use their list of 27 books, and not use one of the earlier lists? [2]

Flaws in the Process

Some may argue that it took time to sort things out, and that the surviving books are the ones that truly belong. But one needs only to look at the process to see how wrong this view is. Look at the reasoning that was used to put the canon together.

Irenaeus, for instance, decreed that there must be exactly four gospels, for there are four directions and four principal winds. Uh, no, that is not sound reasoning.

The Muratorian Canon says it rejected the Apocalypse of Peter because church leaders did not want its disturbing descriptions read aloud. Does that prove anything? Can we throw out a book simply because it is disturbing to read?

Eusebius writes that he accepted those books that were accepted by every orthodox leader he knew. Who was orthodox in his view? Of course, it was the ones that agreed with him! He ignored the lists of leaders like Marcion with whom he disagreed. So, we find that everyone that agreed with the list of Eusebius agreed with the list of Eusebius. Yes, indeed. What does that prove?

The New Testament canon selected by the councils at the end of the fourth century was accepted by most later Christians, but it was far from final. Martin Luther, for instance, did not accept Hebrews, James, Jude or Revelation. The Syrian Orthodox Church still does not accept the book of Revelation. And Catholics accept a number of books written before the New Testament–known as the Apocrypha–that Protestants do not accept.

The Formation of the New Testament Canon Excellent! The Canon of the Bible Are you sure that all of these books belong?

​Links on the Canon

Perhaps our list is wrong. We really don’t know which books, if any, God has selected. So this is another source of error. Perhaps an errant book has somehow slipped into the Bible. After all, an unauthorized ending was apparently appended to Mark. How do we know that nobody ever inserted a whole book that didn’t belong? Perhaps James or even Genesis doesn’t belong there. If they don’t belong, then they might be in error.

Some might suggest that Genesis definitely belongs because other books quote it. What does that prove? Jude quotes the book of Enoch, but we do not include that book in the Bible.

Perhaps you would argue that God guided the process. How so? If God was selecting the books, how did he allow so many differences in the early lists?

Perhaps your parents or church or denomination have told you that the books in their Bible are the correct ones. If you agree with them, then you must think that all lists that differ with yours are wrong. What reason do you have for believing that your list is right, and other lists are wrong?

If there is one thing that my years of debate have taught me, it is that we had better have a good reason for telling another person he is wrong. One cannot simply go to somebody and tell them that their list is wrong.

The fact that your pastor or mother agree with you is not sufficient reason. After all, a Mormon’s mother might agree with him. Does that prove that he is right and that you are wrong? No? It is not sufficient to say that many people agree with you. More people reject your list of books than accept it. If we go by a popular vote, you lose.

If we cannot think of a convincing reason for people to accept your list, then it seems to me that you ought to admit that your list might possibly be wrong. And if your list might be wrong, then you could be carrying around books in your Bible that don’t belong there and are in error.

In conclusion, we may have some misplaced books in our Bible. We have another possible source of error.

Errant Originals

There is one other error source that we need to consider. How do you know that the originals had no errors? Even if you believe that God inspired the originals (a claim we will examine later) isn’t it possible that the original writers got some words wrong? Isn’t it possible to be inspired yet fallible? Most evangelical scholars think the current versions of the Bible are inspired yet have errors. And they believe God can still use them. So, if you think that God uses these books today, even if they have errors in them, couldn’t he have used errant originals?

And so, even if God’s Spirit told the original writers what to write (a claim I will critique later), we would still have many possible sources of error. There may be translation errors, manuscript selection errors, copying errors, deliberate insertions or changes, wrong selection of books to include in the Bible, and misunderstandings by the original authors as to what the Spirit was saying. Even if you do not agree with all of these sources, if you agree to at least one, you agree that the Bible may be mistaken.

Contradictions

With this in mind, let’s look at some of the claimed errors. Let us not approach the problems with the attitude that the Bible cannot possibly be wrong, for we have found good reasons to believe that the copies we hold in our hand may be wrong. So perhaps, when we examine the claimed errors in the Bible, we will find that there are indeed real errors. Here is a table showing some examples, but there are many, many more.

SELECTED BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS

Who was Joseph’s father?

Matthew 1:16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Vs.

Luke 3:23 When He [Jesus] began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

---

How did Judas die?

Mt.27:5 And he [Judas] threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

Vs.

Acts 1:18 (Now this man [Judas] acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

---

Has anyone seen God?

Gen.12:7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, ” To your descendants I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.

Gen.32:30 So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, ” I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.”

Ex.33:11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses returned to the camp, his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.

Vs.

Jn.1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

1 Tim.6:16 who alone possesses immortality and) dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

1 Jn.4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.

---

To whom did God speak at Jesus’ baptism?

Mk.1:11 and a voice came out of the heavens: ” You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

Lk.3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.” Vs.

Mt.3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

---

Is it permitted to divorce an unchaste partner?

Mk.10:11 And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;

Lk.16:18 Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Vs.

Mt.5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mt.19:9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

---

Was David alone when he asked for holy bread?

1 Sam.21:1,6 Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came trembling to meet David and said to him, “Why are you alone and no one with you?” 6 So the priest gave him consecrated bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence which was removed from before the LORD, in order to put hot bread in its place when it was taken away.

Vs.

Mt.12:3-4 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry , he and his companions, 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?

---

When did the cursed fig tree die?

Mt.21:19-20 Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered. 20 Seeing this, the disciples were amazed and asked, “How did the fig tree wither all at once?”

Vs.

Mk.11:13-14, 20-21 Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!” And His disciples were listening. 20 As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up. 21 Being reminded, Peter said to Him, “Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered.”

---

How should parents be treated?

Ex.20:12 Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.

Vs.

Lk.14:26 If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

---

Did Jesus come to bring peace?

Lk.2:14 Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”

Vs.

Mt.10:34 Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

---

How many years of famine were offered to David?

II Samuel 24:13 So Gad came to David and told him, and said to him, “Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days’ pestilence in your land? Now consider and see what answer I shall return to Him who sent me.”

Vs.

I Chronicles 21:11-12 So Gad came to David and said to him, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Take for yourself 12 either three years of famine, or three months to be swept away before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you, or else three days of the sword of the LORD, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.’ Now, therefore, consider what answer I shall return to Him who sent me.”

---

Should children be punished for the sins of their fathers?

Isaiah 14:21 Prepare for his sons a place of slaughter Because of the iniquity of their fathers. They must not arise and take possession of the earth And fill the face of the world with cities.

Exodus 20:5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

Vs.

Deut. 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezek.18:20 “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

---

Is salvation by faith alone?

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

John 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

Vs.

( Matt 19: 16-21 ) 16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, ” YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; 19 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Bible Numerical Problems Old Testament Problems New Testament Problems Skeptic’s Annotated Bible: Contradictions By Steven Wells. Why isn’t the Bible consistent? Are There Contradictions in the Bible? by Bruce Gerencser

Links on Contradictions

Notice that the last contradiction mentioned is a very serious one. The Bible is not even consistent on the way of salvation. In some places the Bible says salvation is by faith alone. But in other places, it declares that one must do certain works to obtain salvation. In the passage quoted from Matthew, Jesus is given the chance to settle the matter. His answer is the opposite of what the Bible declares elsewhere. He declares that salvation is based on keeping commandments and giving to the poor. ( Matt 19: 16-21) And so we find that the Bible is not even consistent on important issues, such as the way of salvation.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk%3Ffeature%3Doembed

Apologist Responses

Apologists have many clever ways of explaining away the contradictions mentioned above. For instance, they will tell me that Luke is talking about Mary’s father, not Joseph’s. Hence, there is no contradiction with Matthew. But that is a totally unsupported assertion. Anyone can see that the passage refers to Joseph’s father, not Mary’s.

And apologists will argue that Judas died in a bizarre combination of hanging and a fall, thus making both accounts true. But their account, in which the rope broke, and Judas fell off a cliff, doesn’t really match either passage.

Likewise, they will tell me that the command to hate parents does not really mean hate. Silly translators! If it doesn’t mean “hate”, why did they translate it that way?

The list of explanations is endless. Are the explanations credible? It can be quite eye-opening to see the contortions that some go through to explain away the contradictions.

Now if we had to buy only one of their clever stories in order to believe in inerrancy, it might be possible. But when we see long lists of implausible explanations, what is the chance that every one of those excuses is true? The skeptic must show only one error to prove that the Bible is not perfect.

I cannot escape the conclusion that the Bible is not only occasionally mistaken but is quite frequently mistaken.

Conclusion

We have been dealing only with the copies of the Bible and have shown reasons to think that the copies we have today have errors. We cannot prove that the originals truly had errors. However, the extent of the errors that have been found in the copies have convinced many that the originals also must have had errors.

So, let’s get back to Genesis 1. When I look at the scientific errors in Genesis 1 when read literally, I do not need to develop an elaborate scheme of how it can be interpreted consistent with the findings of modern science. There may be a much simpler solution. Perhaps Genesis is mistaken.

You may not like to think about mistakes in the Bible. You would like to have a perfect book that tells you exactly what to do. That may well be what you want, but we are not here to discuss what we want. We are here to discuss what is true. It will do us no good to pretend the Bible is perfect. It appears it is not.

Notes

1. Aland, Barbara et al, The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed., United Bible Societies, 1994, p. 2. Cited by Richard Carrier

2. See The Formation of the New Testament Canon by Richard Carrier for more information on the canon.

Copyright Merle Hertzler 2002, 2004, 2005, 2022. All rights reserved.