6. The Bible is Bunk (etc.)
The Bible claims to be from God. The claim in the Bible is that God is Perfect. Therefore, the Bible is supposed to also be Perfect. "Infallible" is the claim, then. I am thoroughly convinced of that claim, going by MESSAGE content -- which is the fastest way to see that the "infallible" claim is true (in the original languages). That's how I came to recognize that the Bible is from God. As noted in #5, I examined the holy books to see if they were self-contradicting with respect to the nature of God. The Bible is the only holy book which passed that test. Over time, I've come to see how each word in the text ties to every other word in the text in an omnidirectional, organized, wholly coherent way. No human could write this. Nor, any demon: for I've discovered in recent years that, using the same criterion as applied to the Bible, the other holy books are often beyond-human too; but they are DELIBERATELY self-contradictory, slapstick, and always have derisive allusions TO the Bible in them. It's uncanny: the best of these holy books, the Koran, is examined at some length in SatStrat.htm ("Appendix", on Home page). So, the Bible must be the Genuine Article: the TRUE Word of God.
One big fallacy among Bible debunkers I've noticed is that they trash material which THEY CLAIM to be the REAL Bible, but is not. That's disingenous, and bad scholarship, to boot. Having found in these claimed books a load of errors (and they're right about that), they ASCRIBE to the REAL Bible these errors, never thinking, - hey, if a book which has Jesus' or an apostle's name in (or on) it is wrong, why should that make THE BIBLE wrong?
- Just because some dingdong puts James' name on an ossuary or a 'apochryphon', doesn't NECESSARILY mean it's THE JAMES (Jacob, really), right? (lol, THREE GUYS named 'James' were all apostles -- and even Encyclopedia Britannica says debate remains as to who-is-who. Why debate, makes no sense to me: Bible is crystal clear -- but hey, have at it!)
- Didn't people lie in the old days, just as much as they do now?
- If some book references an event which is also in the Bible, or quotes a verse FROM the Bible, why should that book be held as the ORIGIN of the Bible event/verse?
This kind of crass demagoguery is what a shyster lawyer does in a trial or lawsuit. To see it happen under the guise of respectable academia, unfairly taints academia as well, for one day it will come to light that the debunking work was stupid. Then everyone will stupidly blame ALL academia due to the abuse by a few. I mean, if Mad Magazine has an error in it which is ABOUT the Encyclopedia Britannica, does that make Encyclopedia Britannica wrong? Ok, and should ALL of Mad Magazine get consigned to the Farenheit 451 flames for such an error? Of course not. Even if the article in question is real old, baby. Like, the Apochrypha of various stripes.
So, before trashing the Bible -- make sure it's REALLY the Bible, okay? Not a translation; not some manuscript which just happens to be of the same period; and above all, not based on AGE: the age of a book is NOT the age of the 'paper', but the age of the LANGUAGE IN the 'paper', which is proven linguistically. Don't make the same dippy mistake Christians always make to validate a thing (using age or respectability): GO BY CONTENT. Which you can ONLY tell, by testing the coherence of WHAT is said. For, the REAL GOD, is consistent. So will be His Real Word. Test THAT way, not the stupid way to make self feel oh so smart to trash a god. One only looks foolish, as a result.
People who make a big stink about how scholarly they are, or how objective they are, end up looking like the biggest of fools when their prejudices are exposed; which always happens, when they trumpet or write some alleged exposé. The types of prejudices are often ASSUMPTIONS, like:
- if a event, sect, name, item is in some artifact OTHER THAN the Bible, the age of the physical media will be conclusive of the relationship between the artifact and the Bible; will be DEFINITIVE of, based on the content of the artifact, the relationship between it and the Bible.
- only the STUPID or INFERIOR believe in God;
- If God orders murder in the Bible, God is mean (it's just not possible that people can be mean);
- if something bad happens to someone self calls good, then God did an unjust thing (not possible that God is not the cause);
- if the Gospel is Believe or Burn, that's unfair (not possible that the other methods can't work for intrinsic reasons, analogous to how you can't drink gasoline).
- if an expert makes a claim about Bible which is (un)favorable, that expert must be 'objective' (okie dokie)
and so on. It's really sad, and both Christians and non-Christians betray themselves this way. The prejudice DRIVES the research, so naturally the scholar will find what he seeks. Of course, prejudice-driven research routinely happens in both pro-Biblical as well as any non-Biblical disciplines every day.
Seems like 'eons' ago, when I was young and a new believer to boot, all these so-called 'researches' bothered me. I didn't know enough to EXAMINE them carefully, nor did I know enough about Scripture. Since then, well..I've grown up some. Since then, my favorite hobby USED TO BE collecting so-called "contradictions" in the Bible; it finally became so BORING to see the same ol' stupidities in the debunkers, I quit. Only takes a few minutes, now, to spot the key error in the research. What a lot of money and time was wasted! I would REALLY love it if, someday before I die, someone would actually come up with a real contradiction, no matter how tiny! I would really love it if the so-called "contradictions" claimed thus far weren't always so demonstrably, um.. foolish? Making the debunker look bad? For, what's so striking about every allegation of contradiction is that the accuser shows his OWN brain isn't working. Which is even more remarkable, when one realizes some pretty respected academic folks accuse Scripture, and spend even their lives writing exposés! In fact, because I don't want to embarrass any of these otherwise-smart people, I'll have to restrict my remarks here to some 'hints' you can use to spot the errors people make, generically. May the Lord keep each of us from remorse and guilt, when we find out what stupid accusations we've made! (Heck, we all make mistakes. If you catch one of yours here, just brush off the dust, and move on. If you catch one of mine here, and are in the mood to disabuse me, email me.)
Alleged Bible bloopers break down into these basic categories. The accuser's logical error(s) mentioned in the first category will continue in the next category, and so on: therefore, add up all the illogic types, or use any error in any category to decipher a logical error in some other category. What I mean is, common sense turns OFF somewhere in the research process, and keeps turning off in the same way when the research is on some other topic. So, add up the illogics, and you get PATTERN which you can then debug to see if the alleged contradiction should be pursued for OTHER reasons. By the way, the foregoing can be used to decipher just about anything. I find it useful when looking for mistranslated verses. [A mistranslation will cause a verse to be fuzzy or even downright contradictory, and there's a definite pattern of errors going with the TYPE of mistranslation, viz., grace verses are mistranslated into works verses, sexual innuendo in verses is euphemized, technical or strong (i.e., swear) words are blanded (watered down), etc.] There's a whole matrix of Lie Detection you can use: Click here for an extract of that Matrix.
Click here for list of New Testament interpretational keys, to help you avoid making bloopers when you seek or think you found, a 'contradiction'. Run through the data there, especially the "Big-Picture" (first) division; so you can avoid most of common logical errors folks make when they EITHER interpret or debunk the Bible.
Again, the following are merely sketched 'hints', lest some specific accuser be exposed. For, it's not about pointing-the-finger, but about learning God: Christ paid for ALL of us!
Persons, places, events which allegedly did not exist, or did not exist
at the time stated in the Bible, or did not exist in the way the Bible
depicted them.
About 20 years ago, I was sitting at lunch with a close pro-evolution friend of mine who is an extremely smart man. He did not know I was a believer (I don't wear my faith on my sleeve), and decided to harangue about some documentary he'd seen on TV which tried to prove whether the Israelites ever really crossed the desert into the Land. The TV crew didn't find one speck of evidence (bones, tent pieces, old food) -- so, my friend loudly concludes, obviously they never CROSSED OVER! I could barely restrain myself when I replied, saying something like this: "Oh? 3000 years later, with all that wind blowing over the terrain, the Arabs being famous scavengers, sand piling up, the practice of ancient peoples to take every scrap with them, for everything had some kind of use -- the TV crew actually expected to find something?" He had no reply.
Inevitably the person claiming the Bible makes this kind of blooper ends up with egg on his face. Moreover, he, or the expert on whom he is depending, doesn't sufficiently research the linguistic and cultural reference points of the passages in question. (For example, "Red Sea" isn't in the Hebrew, but "Reed Sea" -- which could be what we call the Red Sea, or not, since all the seas around there had lots of reeds in them -- papyrus was MADE from the reeds.) The result is a truly egregious blooper which the researcher makes -- one which, had he but used his common sense a bit more, he could have avoided! (Only consistent use of 1Jn1:9 and consistent Scripture study, over time, can do that.)
Bible always pays attention to its audience, and keys its language to the audience at the time of writing: particularly, with names. Improper identification of the correct "reference points", frankly, account for almost all errors in interpreting the Bible. Hence, in interpreting any alleged contradictions, too. In short, both believers and unbelievers make this error all the time!
So let's look at PLACE NAMES. Debunkers forget that Israel has been the footstool for every type of conquest in history; as a consequence, the little desert landbridge between three continents has been run over by practically every racial and ethnic group ever on this planet. That means a very complex tangle of names, and the names 'morph': so that similar sounds have different spellings, but since we lost the sound of that spelling, the spelling looks like a very different name! Same for people.
PLACE NAME Example: when the Bible says that place 'dingo' is Abraham's resting place, but earlier called that place 'bongo', mightn't it just be that those who heard 'dingo' only would recognize it by that name, given the enormous flooding of different languages and peoples over Israel through the centuries? Remember, the whole Bible wasn't available throughout most of man's history. Most only knew it orally, and so names of people and places are updated in the re-telling so that the audience can UNDERSTAND. Those who HAD books, were relatively few, and of those few, most of them only had only a FEW of all the Bible's books, at any given point. The OT was lost over and over. Same, for the NT. It's only in the last 150 years that we have a reliable complete set of manuscripts (few really good ones, many fractured ones). See? Common sense would recognize these issues, not FIRST yell "foul Bible!" (BTW: one's prejudice is exposed by the first 'conclusion' which hits, upon an encounter with what seems to be a problem verse.)
Another PLACE NAME Example: people somehow think Matt8:28, compared to Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 refer to the same event (demon possessed man or men), but get wrong the place. Well, test for yourself: look at the passages themselves and notice how DIFFERENT the events are. One event is short, with no comment about how those freed of the demons, responded. The other, the guy wanted to go with Christ -- but was told to go back to the 10-city area and report what Christ did. Since, in both occasions, the people themselves didn't want someone threatening their pork supply..twice! Yeah, BOTH occasions. Not just one. Two stories, told to us so we can see DIFFERENT ORIENTATION to the same facts (by the one(s) possessed, and by the townspeople). See? COMPARISON. Bible always has a message, isn't just telling you facts to show off, for crying out loud.
So, then: there can't be THREE demon-possessed men in a whole COASTAL area spanning three groups of folks -- which was famous for its pork? Roman cuisine specialized in pork, including for SACRIFICES to Roman gods (demons!), but who remembers that! Think of how shunned such folks would be, by their fellow Jews. Think of the lucrative price they could charge for swine, since pork was something Jews were to abhor, so it would be more troublesome to supply to the goyim? I'm not claiming 'my' answer here is the correct one; but I am saying, hey -- there's ANOTHER answer which would resolve the so-called 'confusion' -- so don't ASSume that because the Greek texts differ in number and place, THEY must be wrong, okay? Do some homework, first. [This is a VERY common CHRISTIAN mistake: if "door" appears in the Gospels, and in Rev3, it MUST be the same 'door'? THINK THINK THINK!]
Also, dunno about where you come from, but where I come from, the SAME AREA has more than one commonly-known name. Even within a 10-mile radius folks IN that area favor one name versus another. Heck, right outside my window now, there's a STREET which has TWO DIFFERENT NAMES (for municipality taxing purposes); people who know that street CHOOSE which name to use in conversation! So, all CORRECTLY name the SAME street. Remember little common-sense stuff like this, when you hear some claim that the Bible screwed up...
PEOPLE NAMES also get badly researched. It's no easy task, so even BAD research deserves some applause. See, compounding that problem of Israel being a footstool, is the fact that, people had many more MEANINGFUL nicknames and other names; much more than today. Take "Nahor", for example: it means "snorer". "Isaac" means "laughter". For each of these meanings, there are others, for the same word. So, God often invents His Own name for a person: like Jacob ("chisler") became Israel ("prince of God"). But sometimes the name God invents, He just uses without warning.
KEY==> The Holy Spirit is always TELLING you some kind of message, not just citing a fact. You have to figure out what He's telling you, to know how to resolve the so-called contradiction. For example, in a recent American Presidential election (Bush Sr., if I recall), one of the candidates invented a commercial to taunt his adversary based on a Wendy's (hamburger chain) commercial. A matron would always come in and say, "Where's the beef?" Meaning, the guy's adversary had a platform of no value. So, if the adversary's platform was about beefing up the police force, but the commercial was to say the beefing-up idea was stupid, the matron could say, "Where's the HEAT?" Because you already KNEW "beef" was supposed to be in that phrase, you knew how to INTERPRET the changed word. So, no contradiction or mistake, but a MESSAGE, get it?
Lately there's been a rash of books which claim Jesus or some of His 1st-Advent associates did or didn't or differently existed; when you look at these claims, you almost have to cover your mouth -- to keep from laughing. For, they make these elaborate claims based on names, and when you read how they derive their so-called scholarly conclusions, you wonder if they were drunk the entire time they did the research. Like, more than one Mary (a very common name, and it was really Miriam, not Mary), or even Jesus (Joshua, really, Yeshua, another common name).
Further, they don't recognize family naming conventions then used, so that yes, two people in the same family might have the SAME name:
- one, as a nickname or
- even a title designed to honor another person in the family,
- a way to say "I admire you";
- the other, as a FORMAL name (which the PERSON so named never used).
- So, two people in the same family might have SEVERAL names, not just our modern 1st, middle, last;
- since people don't choose their OWN names, the name they actually USE would be different; or,
- if a CHILDLESS person died, some RELATIVE in the family took on that deceased's name, as a way to preserve the person's memory.
- You'll see these practices even today, among old European nobility; so that one of the siblings adopts a nickname, to distinguish him from another in the same family who has the same name.
- It's also VERY common in Latin America, where even men often take the name "Maria" as a hyphenated part of their first names.
- In Arab countries, if you yell "Mohammed", 1000 people, likely all related closely, will come running! In one pension plan I did, the only way to tell the brothers apart was by the MIDDLE name!
In short, instead of making up elaborate hypotheses about hidden naming codes to hide the disposyni (Lord's human relatives) so to fantasize debunking THE BIBLE (naming codes really debunk nothing, but hey): why not use Occam's razor, cut to a simpler approach. For example, "Barnabas" was a nickname, meaning "Encouragement". It wasn't his real name. So if you see a Barnabas and another Barnabas, they might or MIGHT NOT be the same person. Is this too much for common sense? Don't just ASSUME because the names are similar or the same, that wow, I found in this OTHER Barnabas a juicy bad thing -- that you surely have the same Barnabas. Now, for your homework assignment, look up every "James" and every use of the term "brother" in ONLY the New Testament (or whole Bible, if you've time): see if YOU can't tell whether ONE of the Jameses was ACTUALLY the half-brother of Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMasiach). Which James? Which Jesus? Ahhh. Also, look up 'Jude' (really, Judas or Judah) in the Bible (hint, he wrote a Bible book), and see if you can tell that he is NOT one of the apostles, and to WHICH James he is brother. Then, look up all the bad scholarship on these two guys ..and chuckle. Isn't it nice to know God gets it right? (Scholarship went bad sometime in the 200's AD, from what I can tell, though the 'majority' school was bad since Christ died! Witness how only PAUL taught about CHURCH: Acts shows you how nearly everyone but Paul's group was wacko. 'Understandably wacko, but wacko just the same.]
Then there are miscellaneous-category 'names' which to the un-homeworked, look like contradictions. There are TWO reasons for researcher mistakes here. The first reason, is that they don't remember the fact that Bible keys to its audience, as noted above.
For example, someone wrote about how the Bible allegedly contradicts itself in claiming one kind of animal was a beast-of-burden versus the type mentioned in Scripture for the time a Bible passage referenced: therefore, the person concluded, the Bible was in error, since that beast-of-burden wasn't used during the time ASSIGNED to the OT story. Let's pretend that the claimant actually KNEW enough to know the TRUE time of the OT story. (That matters, for a whole lot of bad scholarship exists about WHEN some OT event happened, viz., the common misdating of the Exodus as during Ramses, rather than Amenhotep II.) Clearly the author didn't know that since Moses was writing to an audience LATER than the event he was covering, Moses would have to use terms THEY would understand. Moreover, Hebrew is a very flexible language, and at the same time, very precise: a word can denote several TYPES of things, and the use of articles (or syntax) with those words tells the reader whether he's being told a paradigm, or something literally specific; whether a thing is an approximation or type, or a particular, literal thing/person, etc. So, the writer of the article ended up looking foolish, for he clearly didn't do his homework. And this, in a famous magazine. Spare yourself embarrassment, then: don't you make the same mistake, by just BELIEVING a debunker unless you also do a LOT of homework.
The second reason for researcher mistakes relates to what common sense should immediately detect: literary language uses a wide variety of colorful devices to depict literal things, non-literal things, and abstract concepts. Both pro- and anti- Bible people frequently FORGET to read the Bible the way you would the richest of literature; yet NOT forget how to read Shakespeare, Milton, or Goethe! For, unlike every other book written (and some are fabulous), the Bible completely taps the depth of every linguistic feature of every language it uses, in the original-language manuscripts. There are maybe 12 different languages in the original-language manuscripts (mostly Hebrew + Greek, or mostly Greek, with lots of '-isms', like Hebraisms, Atticisms, Doricisms). Translations lose a lot of the originals' flavor. Even where the flavor is mostly preserved, people prove they CAN'T read! instead of proving some contradiction. If you're really looking for God, LEARN HOW TO READ LITERATURE. That way, you can prove to YOURSELF that the Bible is really from God, for its skill is unparalleled. No human or demon is smart enough on his own to write THAT well.
KEY==> See? Not only do you have to find out what God is telling you, you also have to find out HOW HE MEANS what HE says. Not what you or I think He says. For, God also suddenly REVERSES or DELIBERATELY CHANGES a quotation, to show you what HE MEANS. Compare Heb8:8-12 to Jer31:31-34 to Heb10:15-17. Another good comparison to make is Ps40:5ff to Heb10:5. (These two comparative uses are FABULOUS.) Bible does this sort of thing a LOT! Writers in both NT and OT are VERY fond of this sort of wordplay: the Lord makes a lot of these wordplays in the Gospels, too. It's not a mistake or a contradiction, but a USAGE of the QUOTED verse in its near context. For example, the Lord at birth spoke from His Humanity (yes, as a miracle) to God the Father in Heb10:5. The way He USES Ps40:5ff's meaning is to be interpreted by the READER in light of Hebrews 10: specifically, Heb10:8-17. You can tell this is so, because, beginning in verse 8, the author of Hebrews TELLS you the interpretation of the 'altered' quote. Other such usages don't explain so obviously, because they don't HAVE to: the reader is already FAMILIAR with the quotation and will thus IMMEDIATELY see how the CHANGE in the quotation 'reveals' the meaning. For an example of the preceding sentence, do the first comparison, that of Heb8:8-12 to Jer31:31-34, to Heb10:15-17. (Hint: the Holy Spirit is explaining why CHURCH is not Israel, but has its own covenant as part of the setup for Operation Footstool: that's the main theme of the Book of Hebrews. Read the WHOLE of Hebrews about a dozen times. Yes, that many times: God is not a soundbyte. Also, be CAREFUL to see if you are tracking the author's thoughtline as you read. Track also the repeated words, which act as conceptual tracking devices. Among English translations, NIV might best convey overall flavor.) It's REALLY important to understand how commonly writers of Scripture USE prior Scripture to craft explanations. Scripture must be BUILT on Scripture: that's a cardinal principle in the Bible, and thus in Biblical hermeneutics (interpretation).
The type of wordplay is akin to the 'beef commercial', above, for it DEPENDS on you knowing how the scene/quotation is SUPPOSED to go, in order for you to "get" the wordplay. Every human language ever in existence has employed this form of wordplay, too: it's especially used when IRONY or SATIRE is intended. All the Greek plays and Shakespeare depended on it. The point of such a deliberate change is to show you how the QUOTED verse applies 'now': 'now' being, relative to the passage in which the CHANGED quotation occurs. In short, FIRST assume that there is a REASON for the seeming contradiction, and try to find out what that reason might be. Big goldmine, in such research!
So, see? You don't need a 'sign', you need a class in literary reading! Suggest you get into drama, for most of the NT uses Attic (Athenian) Greek classical dramatic metaphorical style (a fact which used to be widely recognized, but is discarded today -- out of STUPIDITY). Try the library, where you can get lots of good books. Take a class in Shakespeare, or look up books about him by William Main (former prof of mine). Try reading James Joyce' Ulysses, to see how densely the features of a language can be used. Bible is like a bizillion times better, even though Ulysses is (rightly) regarded as one of the world's greatest literary masterpieces of all time. (Koran is right up there, too, frankly. Satan (or a high demon) wrote it VERY beautifully and well.) If your native country is not America or European, then look into your own country's famous authors and playwrights. Study them. It's patriotic, and it's EXTREMELY helpful in knowing both the richness of your own native tongue, as well as the way to learn the Bible better. Even if only to debunk it.
Also, the type of writing goes with the purpose of the writing. So, a legal contract will manifest a very different writing style, and will organized according to LEGAL conventions of its time. The Bible is really a collection of LEGAL documents: depositions (narratives), contractural provisions (e.g., Gen 12), spiritual and civil law (obvious, I hope), customs (mostly depositional, but sometimes normative), recommendations, judgements. The OT had three divisions to it. The books aren't in the same order in the original-language texts as they are in most store-bought Bibles (which is why the Lord references first and last books as different from the ones we know, in the Gospels). In short, you have to know what TYPE of writing you are looking at, before you can begin to interpret. Especially, since the Bible's original-language words are multilayered and multipurpose, so written with MULTIPLE LAYERS OF WRITING STYLE. All, at once. Just like Infinity.
So if Amos says "cows of Bashan", he's not talking about LITERAL cows, but a metaphor for extremely stupid humans, get it? If the sun stands still, it MIGHT be a metaphor for the way TIME seems to stand still (who has not had such a sensation), or it MIGHT be literal: miracle, then -- shade your eyes! If the Bible says the "four corners", it's not talking of LITERAL corners, for crying out loud. (Compass usage is a lot older than recognized, and the four points of a horizon were in common usage since ancient times.)
In short, YOU HAVE TO CHECK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE and the contemporary isagogics to know what language/literary feature is used. Make sure you get the time period right, or "contemporary" research will be wasted. Go by the age of the language, not the age of the medium (i.e., parchment). You can tell the age of the language by referencing each word and how it is used. Here, Strong's and other lightweight lexicons won't help, because they only list places where the word or words like it are used; they don't and CAN'T interpret the word in the verse. You have to spend time learning the construction of legal concepts and the language methodology used to communicate them. You also have to spend time studying how "literature" works: wordplay is essential to good literature, and ESPECIALLY, to the REAL Bible. Alliteration, sarcasm, metaphor, simile, customs regarding hall-of-famers (geneology isn't one-generation-at-a-time), and literally THOUSANDS of linguistic features all get employed in good literature.
If you aren't willing to do all this study, then you can't test someone's claim about what the Bible rightly or wrongly says. So, believe or disbelieve, but DON'T pretend you really have the answer. Frankly, if you want the answer truly, just ask GOD. He's the Expert. If you ever once believed in Christ, use 1Jn1:9 and pray to FATHER in SON's Name for help. Holy Spirit will answer. Then, relax, and be alert for the incoming data from your Bible Study or circumstances. (He won't hit you with more than you can absorb, so be patient; we humans are too small for the WHOLE answer to hit us at once.) If you've not yet believed in Christ, believe now, then use the foregoing sentence to get answers. It's FASTER and MORE RELIABLE.
Textual manipulation or corruption.
Ignorance here is appalling. Since machines didn't exist in the first century AD, if you wanted a copy of the Bible (more commonly, a Bible book), you had to write it out. So, over the years, thousands of these copies have been discovered; some are actually not Bibles at all, but LECTURES with Bible verses in them. Again, the science of textual criticism is to certify whether the verses in a manuscript are BIBLE, or not. A wide variety of linguistic and isagogical skills are required to analyse the text. The Bible's original-language texts are largely fragmented; we have under 10 nearly-or-full Bible manuscripts. So each VERSE has to be tested. Here, the fact that in a VERY small percentage of the outstanding MSS some scribe's pen slipped is blown up into saying there was wholescale adulteration, so you can't trust the Bible. Of course, a lot of these allegations, as we already saw above, are based on a) non-Biblical texts or data (erroneously treating them as valid so the BIBLE can be trashed); or b) MISINTERPRETATION of BIBLICAL text, or c) BOTH a) and b).
You should have enough common sense to know that, just as today, Christ's First Advent was THEN a major upset not only for Israel, but for the so-called "civilized world" at that time. One of the best ways to know if a thing is true in the past, is to see how a) popular, or b) controversial, it was. So, for example, Mohammed was a real guy, because people got either rabidly upset, or rabidly in love with his 'message'. So, too, and especially, with the Lord's First Advent. Everyone wanted to either DESTROY His followers -- or, especially later -- cash in on their fame. So a lot of fake 'gospels' appear during this time; many rumors, speculations, weird variations of the faith, you name it -- appeared. The Talmud today is a cleaned-up version from the original one, because a whole lot of supposed nasty references to the Lord were in there. [Talmud came out within a few centuries of the Jesus' crucifixion, but is supposed to be a compilation of older rabbinical discussions. Some consider it part of Oral Torah. There's a great division in Judaism over this idea, but you won't hear much argument publically. I don't much care if there were anti-Jesus references in Talmud or not, so I've not checked into the allegations, except that I was able to prove that in medieval times, Jews purged Talmud of some references to avoid persecution. That DOESN'T mean the references were truly anti-Jesus; if they were, so what? The Lord needs no defending. Talmud is useful, but is not God's Word, as any review of it proves quite easily.] So you have to separate a lot of chaff from the wheat. So, the first common-sense item the researcher misses is wow, maybe someone was trying to PRETEND a text was of the Bible way back 'then', or just made a bad copy. Or, think: is this the ONLY time in history the Bible has been debunked or counterfeited? Guess again!
If you do a little religions' history checking, you'll find out that virtually all religions since Christ make some claim ON Him; whether it's a claim that yet another 'new revelation' comes out (i.e., Book of Mormon, Koran); or a 'new' wrinkle in that faith arises (i.e., Mahayana Buddhism); or a 'new' teaching ABOUT Him is claimed to be really sourced in that other faith. (Most Eastern religions and the gnostics make this claim -- gnosticism, though, is WAY older than most official pronouncements date it. I could trace it back to a good 500 years BEFORE Plato. However, gnosticism underwent a MAJOR change after the Crucifixion. As indeed, did all the world's religions. See for yourself, if you are inclined.)
A few years back I saw a 'find' allegedly from John or Matthew (I forget who). The thing could have just been someone's notes on scripture verses, or someone's attempt to write yet another groupie-gospel (everyone wanted his 15 minutes of fame, even then). But it was obviously NOT Scripture; yet, because it dated around the 1st century AD and had a snippet of some Bible verses in it, lo! It must be an adulterated word-of-god! Yeah, right. In short, often 'adulteration' isn't even in a BIBLE book, nor would it matter if it were, since we have thousands of manuscripts to check against. Moreover, Catholics (East and West) generally treat on par with Bible, books which are not biblical: because, they revere those other books. So GOD gets trashed because some OTHER book which HE DIDN'T WRITE is revered? Does this make sense?
Read some of those other texts, sometime: The Other Bible, by Willis Barnstone, is a sample collection. Weird stuff. Not even remotely like REAL Bible. Takes but a few minutes to see, for example, that the "Apochryphon" of (allegedly) James is some drunken loony's fantasy! You really have to be a liar, or STUPID to contend these books have any holy authorship. They are more like the demon-slapstick stuff in the Gospels, at best.
It is true, however, that MANY verses in the Bible are badly translated, especially in English Bibles, and oftentimes it's obvious that the bad translation was deliberate. But should a manipulated TRANSLATION give an excuse to yell, "Bad Bad Bible"? People should get their facts straight, before they accuse, right? In "Thinking Out Loud" webseries you'll find hundreds of the pro- Bible TRANSLATION errors illustrated (usu. in small font).
Example: Young Muslims are taught to descry the Bible, which is strange, since the Koran itself claims the Old Testament and Gospels to be from God somewhere in every Sura. Moreover, young Muslims are taught the errors in the KJV, so they can call the real Bible, bunk! And this, in a sect which demands the Arabic of the Holy Koran be preserved, lest it be mistranslated! But the KJV is NOT the Bible, but merely a TRANSLATION of one of the lesser-quality manuscripts. Only the original languages' texts are the Bible, and not EVERY VERSE in EVERY manuscript is God's WORD: you have to test each verse. These Muslims are taught that (and it's true) some verses in the KJV were added by scribes (yeah, a FEW out of THOUSANDS of verses). Or, that the original-language manuscripts don't all agree (true, they are COPIES, and 1-3% of the verses are errors of varying kinds). So, the Bible is trashed because its translators and copyists aren't perfect?
How do we know which is God's Word, then? Because we have so many original-language Biblical manuscripts. "Textual criticism" is a discipline which evaluates the genuineness of a manuscript (be it the Bible, or something non-biblical). Moreover, the very linguistics used in real Bible verses, coupled with the MEANING, are too high for any human to have invented. It took me until 1995 to see that for myself in the TEXT, but it only took a few MONTHS to see that fact from MEANING -- even in a bad translation. It's not rocket science, It's GOD'S BRAINS (hence the need for 1Jn1:9 to be online). DIRECT. Because we have so many manuscripts, their sheer number amounts to a built-in counterfeit or error detection system, so "textual criticism" has a good database. (Heh. God thinks of everything.) So to say that the Bible is infallible and inerrant means that the GENUINE texts are. Verse by verse. A compilation, in other words. No one MSS is perfect, but we have enough together to tell which is God's Word versus a scribal or other error.
Some people think God should have just kept a few manuscripts well-preserved, and since these aren't like that, what we have must not be God's Word. Guess again: by having recourse to texts in this format, and by using 1Jn1:9 and THINKING as you read, you can prove to yourself that the Word is really from God, because adulteration, mistake and forgery would be much harder to detect with fewer, though well preserved, manuscripts. Think of the many hoaxes in the past (i.e., Shroud of Turin, or even famous paintings) -- if there were MANY of them, the fake would be much more easily distinguished (see the old Dr. Who episode on the Mona Lisa, for example -- that one starred Tom Baker).
The Bible says two (or more) contradictory things about the same object
(person, place, statement, you-name-it).
Ok, this couldn't be too tough for common sense, could it? Maybe thing A was true at time A, but thing B was true at time B? Or, maybe BOTH A and B are simultaneously true, but opposite facets? Life itself is naturally full of paradoxes, too. So, often, a person place or thing itself is contradictory, and the Bible is merely noting that. Or, some INCORRECT statement is being made by a person, which the Bible merely records him saying. In short, it's real important to know whether you are looking at a depositional verse, or a Divine judgement/opinion verse. The Bible debunker (or defender, for that matter) rarely seeks that distinction. Christians, too, don't do their homework and thus misinterpret Scripture.
Example: The TIME of the Lord's crucifixion is listed twice in the Gospels: once by Roman time, and once by Jewish time standards. So, the person who doesn't do his homework on those reference points, will holler, "Contradiction! See, the Bible is wrong!" (Biblical geneologies also differ by WHICH LINE is being traced, and the LINE isn't everyone IN the line, but only highlighted individuals. Sadly, no one bothers to THINK about the CUSTOMS then prevalent, which explain why the naming goes as it does for MARY's line. So accusers holler, "Contradiction!")
Bigger Example: The Bible makes up its own buzzwords, for among the many things the Bible is, is a legal CONTRACT. Legal contracts must list and describe their own definitions. Here's a sad thing: Bible buzzwords aren't generally recognized as being multi-meaninged, like a skyscraper, though the fact that Bible buzzwords are DELIBERATELY multistoried is widely taught/recognized by Bible scholars (lol you're taught the fact in 1st-year seminary), as even anyone taught Talmud can tell you.
Sample: Bible words translated "Salvation" also mean "deliverance", and are often used to signify the permanence and result of the Foundation (Our Lord's Work on the Cross). So, 'to show the resultant corollaries: how "salvation" is NOT merely to-Heaven, but on-earth deliverance from sin, too. People who don't dig into the original languages sufficiently (which include a lot of Christians skilled in the languages, but unskilled in using 1Jn1:9) will thus see "salvation" verses which appear to contradict each other.
Same with "baptism". Of which there are seven different kinds, and NONE of them are really talking about water being needed. Custom, yes. Requirement, no. But to see that you have to HAVE YOUR BRAIN ON (obviously getting wet can't save you, or one would be saved when he first bathes); study; learn the Homeric etymology of Baptizo/Baptismos. Then, you've got to ask of any verse, which kind of Baptism is in view? Bible always distinguishes which kind, viz., Baptism of Moses, Baptism of Christ, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Baptism of John in the verse itself, in a parallel verse, or in the context. But oh! Both debunkers and defenders ignore that, and brand all "baptism" verses, as some kind of water magic, so OF COURSE some verses which speak of 'baptism' will 'contradict' the others, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME KIND OF BAPTISM.
In short, there are bad lawyers, and good ones: the bad ones of course can't read as well as the good ones. So, apparent contradictions are due to the READER INTERPRETING the verse as if it were contradictory, rather than the text saying something contradictory, even in a translation. 1Jn1:9 and lots of study in the Word will gradually relieve the bloopee from making these bloopers.
The Bible teaches against itself.
If common sense operates, it naturally accepts the idea that there is a time to do "A", and another time to do A's antithesis. So, obviously, a boundary line exists; so, over that boundary, the opposite response is required. Or, a subject has two or more facets/spheres. One sphere, something that actually happens/happened. Another, the NORM. You know, H20 is the property of water, but it MANIFESTS differently (ice and gas seem like opposites, but are the same 'stuff'). So also, there is a time when killing is wrong, but also a time when it is right. Knowing the boundary line, then, is critical; not knowing it, leads to erroneous conclusions and "contradiction!" claims.
Example: 1Jn is primarily about how to stay in fellowship with God, and the vicissitudes one faces while growing. So, sin is a subtopic woven in throughout; "abide" is the keyword John likes to use in all his epistles for fellowship. So, why is it we suddenly see in 1Jn5:18 that one born of God "does not sin"? Well, first of all, the dingbat who doesn't notice that John began ticking off STANDARDS in verse 17, and is not talking about experience, will mistake verse 18 FOR experience. So, will think it a contradiction. Moreover, the dingbat who doesn't READ verse 18 and its following context, won't realize that v.18 and following verses are talking about our ETERNAL SECURITY due to our ROYAL POSITION ("born") in Christ -- which is the main theme of the epistle since verse 1:4 (repeated in 5:13). Birth is spiritual (see John3:16), the acquisition of a human spirit and hence a spiritual life (ibid, and see Titus 3:5); but sin is something you do with your SOUL.
Note the STRUCTURE versus FUNCTION boundary line: "born" indicates your STATUS/POSITION, whereas "sin" indicates your experience. Souls think, and thus sin; human spirit is just a processor, and has no volitional component of its own, so doesn't sin. Read the passage yourself. See if you can't see that he's talking norms and position "in" Christ, as compared to FUNCTIONAL EXPERIENCE.
Another example: Paul wrote in Galatians 3 that there is no difference between male and female, in Christ. Yet, when people read Paul's epistles, they conclude somehow that he's a misogynist, because he never married, and because he wrote certain prohibitions given women believers. Both the Lord and Peter said similar stuff (and quite strongly, in the Greek), but since Paul wrote most of the NT, I guess he's the bigger target. What: if I don't marry, I must HATE the sex opposite my own? Does this make sense?
Note the boundary line: just because we are equal in Christ, doesn't mean we are equal in AUTHORITY. So: do Paul's debunkers ENTIRELY forget the culture of those days, which was male-dominated? Do they NEVER remember that God has always said, obey societal law? Do they NEVER understand, that if Paul WRITES that women must wear long hair (short/shaved hair was for prostitutes, the sick, mourners); that if women aren't allowed to be pastor-teachers -- it DOESN'T HAVE TO MEAN he hates women? Men aren't allowed to bear children -- so are men hated because they aren't thus allowed? See how the accuser's prejudice is exposed in these debunkings? See what an insecure donkey the accuser is revealed to be?
Look: we are equal IN CHRIST. But here on earth, we bumpkin around together with rules we agree upon. So, as with any contract, integrity demands you live up to the agreement. For most of man's history, women are not considered appropriate as pastors, because the man is the authority in the HOME. Bible concurs, from Gen1:1 forward. So, what? That rule doesn't make women 'less equal', for crying out loud. Stop being so insecure, and get a life! Like, Christ's Life! For, you are a son of God, whether male or female, in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3). How high a life can you get! {smile}
Yet another example, in Acts 1:6-7. In the NTKeys.htm you'll find a red italic subsection entitled "God's Opinion versus narrative". Here's one such passage. In verse 6, the disciples asked Him if He was going to make His Second Advent right away. So, you know three things: a) what He told them before about the Temple's destruction preceding His Second Coming, they FORGOT; and b) they also forgot the many-versed prophecy about the times of the Gentiles in the OT (known then under other names, but always with goy in each moniker). They also forgot c) Him telling them BEFOREHAND that 'no man knows the day or hour' (Greek idiom means, not able to predict AT ALL). So, verse 7, He reminds them again. Note the boundary line: FATHER DETERMINES, versus what people want or think true.
See how simple it is to understand these two verses in Acts? Yet, by golly, someone will say, "Well, Acts 1:6 CONTRADICTS the Rapture verses!" Noooo -- it only proves that the disciples FORGOT what He previously said. So verse 6 is a depositional verse, a narration of what THEY THOUGHT -- not God's statement about what IS the correct doctrine. Be careful, when you read...
The Bible "borrowed" from other allegedly-older books, cultures or religions.
If one examines the MESSAGE of the Bible, it will become obvious that yes, the Bible frequently references existing stupid religious practices or other ideas -- why? To teach why they are stupid. For example, the satyr was in many pantheons long before the Greco-Roman one. So, how to communicate that such a 'god' was really nothing, or a demon? Well, duh -- use the term they know: satyr.
The Mosaic Law is in large part a spoof on all the surrounding territories' practices. Just because it uses their terms to communicate doesn't mean the Bible came FROM them, for crying out loud. It's so hard to fathom that people can be so dumb. What? Because thing A talks about thing B, that A must have been BORN FROM B? So if I talk about you and you me, that means we're siblings? Really. See how the brain has shut off? Christians are equally shut-down, if they don't routinely use 1Jn1:9 and grow in Bible doctrine (1Cor2:16).
Example: there's a ton of so-called 'research' claiming that Scripture is but a plaigarisation of other books, or other events, because there's some similarity viewed in some other book. Moreover, among this research is a common misconception that Biblical roles assigned to God are but a copy/mutation of other religions, simply because similar words are used. Ok, this can't be too hard to understand, could it: just because a dinosaur and a dog each have four legs doesn't mean the latter came from the former. Just because "dinosaur" is in story "A" and story "B" doesn't means it's the SAME dinosaur, either.
Science 'disproves' the Bible in some specific way (evolution being the most commonly-cited 'science', here)
Of all the arguments advanced against Scripture, this one is the most common, and the most illogical. Most common, because people feel smart to know something about science, but stupid to believe in God; so, they look at all the stupid Christians, and conclude the BIBLE stupid because the Christians are. In short, people use 'science' because it makes them feel superior. But, how superior are they? Illogical, that's what they are, for to claim science is superior to the BIBLE because so many Christians are stupid, is like saying if a black man stole from you, black SKIN must be evil!
Yet the one who feels science is somehow more 'objective' than believing in God betrays himself to be disingenuous. Instead of just being honest and admitting, "I don't like this idea of God, or any God", he instead picks ANOTHER 'god', namely science. How so? Well, as you read the following A) through C), ask yourself if the so-called science vs. Bible debate has any LOGICAL validity whatsoever -- on EITHER side, attacker or defender. Ask if science isn't but being ABUSED to justify a prejudicial position with respect to God.
A) God does miracles, duh. They wouldn't BE "miracles", if they weren't 'against' natural law! How else to know it's GOD saying hello? What, God can't make SOME independent rules, but leave others to His Sole Discretion? What, God can't make OVERRIDES? What, God can't CHOOSE to INTERVENE? He's GOD, get it? If He feels like making a world-wide flood, He can do that. If He feels like making the sun stand still, He can do that. Science is not God, GOD is God. Do we see how ZERO common sense is operating in whomever claims that science 'disproves' God? Look: should God 'obey' science in order to justify belief? Should God shrink into some natural mode, to suit someone's ego? God's not ALLOWED to just speak a thing into existence? Isn't the accuser REALLY saying he doesn't want God qua God? So, he creates a stupid standard of "proof": God isn't God if he doesn't 'obey' science. So, finding God wanting, the accuser self-righteously goes off in a huff and says, "God doesn't exist"? Is this what a brain-on does? How scientific is this 'logic'? Heck, it's tautological! Science contradicts the Bible? As if God isn't allowed, excuuuuse me, or is ONLY allowed, excuuuuse me, to do miracles -- as 'proof' He exists?!?! WORSE, since when is it logical to expect that IMMATERIAL God could or SHOULD be detected by MATERIAL instruments? So that if science can't 'detect' God, oh wow -- God must not exist? Find a better argument, or just say you don't believe, but don't PRETEND you're being scientific with this kind of excuse. Don't denigrate science to buttress your ego.
B) Oh, scientific law is all complete and accurately understood, is it? Not too long ago SCIENTISTS (but not the Bible) taught that bleeding someone got rid of his disease! Do you know how many people bled to death? Not too long ago (against what Scripture says) doctors counselled their rich clients NOT to bathe, because that was bad for health! Not too long ago (again, contrary to Scripture), the mentally-ill were shut up in asylums, and subjected to unbelievable experiments! Science has a dark past, and -- because of Scripture -- many scientists were believers (i.e., Newton, Gregor Mendel -- don't tell the prolifers that). So whether believers or not, 'science' folk have had some pretty dangerous theories!
Oh, and what scientist today really KNOWS how all nature works? So, then: might there be some scientific law about what right now seems a 'miracle', which we don't yet know? Just as many scientists of old figured the movement of the planets was controlled, rather than natural? So the gods were the planets (see the end of Aristotle, where he replies to those who once thought as gods, the planets)? Can the accuser be more arrogant than to claim he knows enough science to account for everything, and thus what he cannot account for, must be a lie?
C) No one accurately interprets what the Bible says, when they make their claims. That was the central flaw ON BOTH SIDES in the famous Scopes trial: everyone looked like an idiot, because everyone used THEIR INTERPRETATION (all of which were insane) to decide 'for' or 'against' the defendant. Even today, over 99% of what's published in the media, in documentaries, etc. about what is or isn't accurate in the Bible is based on erroneous interpretations, RATHER THAN on the Bible itself; people use TRANSLATIONS, politically-accepted meanings, inept 'experts'. Yet it's the BIBLE which gets accused. Come on, now: if someone SAYS the Bible says "x", and that "x" is proven incorrect, the BIBLE ITSELF must be saying "x"? Didn't we outlaw hearsay evidence from the foundation of America?
The same inaccuracy-of-interpretation is the norm for a lot of allegedly pro-Bible, "theo-scientific" rebuttal. It's as if anyone who gets involved in these science-versus-bible issues must lose his common sense, in order to enter the debate. Ergo: a lot of folks, frustrated here, try to make what they call 'problem passages' allegorical, because that's all their weak analysis can handle. Others take what are obvious figures-of-speech and construe them as literal, and then build on that misinterpretation some kind of anti- (or pro- !) Bible claim. Look: it all depends on how you READ the text; and if you're working from a translation, don't even DARE to base any interpretation on the text.
Example: back in Acquinas' day (Treatise of the Six Days), there was some concern over the "gap in time" between Gen1:1 and 1:2 (see the LXX or the NIV): today, we think about how LONG that gap is, and ponder what it means -- or, deny there is one. But in Acquinas' day, the length of time wasn't the issue: instead, it was felt the gap indicated a different creating agent. So, Acquinas tried to REASON whether God created everything 'immediately' (directly), or 'mediately' (i.e., via angels). So before one rides into the sunset with the joyous expectation of exposing that dang bible -- ask -- do I have the right interpretation? After all, men have been unclear about what science the Bible notes, for centuries.
Many is the person who, reading these comments, would understandably reply, "Oh, you oversimplify; the arguments against Bible are much more scholarly than you paint." NO, they're not scholarly at ALL, but they sure PRETEND to be -- and THAT's my complaint. Look: it's nearly impossible to correctly research, in the first place. So, when fake scholarship comes along, it makes a GOOD scholar's work that much more DISrespected, and thus makes his job that much HARDER. It's unfair to the sciences, to academia in general, even before recognizing that it's COMPLETELY unfair to God&Bible.
Sigh: the same trend toward beggar-rule is happening worldwide on every level, for authority shows its rottenness, so people react by DEBUNKING authority. Scripture debunkers are but one class of it, not scholarly at all, but with a thirst for vengeance which shows in the utter stupidity of their alleged 'scholarship'. More: debunkers seem to be a bellweather in history, for persecution is always followed by rebellion (because the persecuted end up gaining popularity from their martyrs). The way history is going, the ever-in-the-third-grade Christian population will receive sympathy; and then, will take over politically. The trend is already well-developed in the US. Once these grammar-school spiritual kids get political control, they WRECK the countries they rule: for Farenheit 451 becomes a virtue, again. We saw it in 300AD-1800AD on a repeated basis. Let's not lose what we've learned, yet again? If you're a believer, GROW UP spiritually. That alone will save lives. God, not man, should be the center of every believer's focus. Not politics, not the debunkers, not crusades. Just Christ.
If you're an unbeliever, be aware that STUPID debunking accelerates historical decline, in history. You can trace it like some law of gravity. SO DO IT RIGHT, if you will debunk!
Just ONCE in my life I'd like to see some GOOD scholarship when it comes to debunking Bible. Instead, churned out is lot of detail, mostly irrelevant, often disingenuous and with shyster-lawyer arguments [i.e., saying Bible took some religious idea from somewhere else, based on the PARCHMENT age of the MSS, rather than on the REAL and much-older age of the original LANGUAGE]; badly connected, and chock full of 'suggest' and 'data seem to indicate', but no meat. Oh, and a lot of big words. So, when you strip out the fluff, only the prejudice remains. Of course, the same is true for a lot of pro-Biblical scholarship, too: thanks to the Energizer Bunny (tm) of Total Depravity, we're ALL vulnerable, not just the debunkers!
Most of us do not have the time to go chasing down all of these allegations. There are so many of them, only a very thorough knowledge of both Scripture and the allegation's basis protects one from feeling perhaps worried that the allegation is true. As a result, a good many folks feel bad about (or, believe) what is really no more than cheap gossip about Scripture.