Attacks on Christianity through supposed flaws in Scripture

[theguidedheart]

I hear over and over again objections to Christianity because of supposed flaws in Scripture - so we are therefore thought of as ignorant believers who devote our life to some kind of fantasy… this was exemplified in something I read, here is a link below:

allfreeessays.com/student/Flaws_In_Christianity.html

Now I have tried reading through a couple of points this person tries to make, but don’t have hallf the knowledge of most people on this site, I was wondering if there are any Christian rebuttals to some of the points mentioned here, as they are typical from the secular world.

Thanks for any help you guys can offer…

Peace!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I hear over and over again objections to Christianity because of supposed flaws in Scripture - so we are therefore thought of as ignorant believers who devote our life to some kind of fantasy… this was exemplified in something I read, here is a link below:

allfreeessays.com/student/Flaws_In_Christianity.html

Now I have tried reading through a couple of points this person tries to make, but don’t have hallf the knowledge of most people on this site, I was wondering if there are any Christian rebuttals to some of the points mentioned here, as they are typical from the secular world.

Thanks for any help you guys can offer…

Peace!

The truth is that is one of the worst articles I have ever read, I read the first few paragraphs and it was nothing more than ranting and raving with half truths and lousy logic. It was clearly an amature who thought he was “enlightened” but in reality it was worthless writing, I have seen better cases by non-Christians than that.

Take any or everything in that article that bothers you and post it here and there are people around here who can turn it on its head.

Dont worry about stuff like that

 

[theguidedheart]

The truth is that is one of the worst articles I have ever read, I read the first few paragraphs and it was nothing more than ranting and raving with half truths and lousy logic. It was clearly an amature who thought he was “enlightened” but in reality it was worthless writing, I have seen better cases by non-Christians than that.

Take any or everything in that article that bothers you and post it here and there are people around here who can turn it on its head.

Dont worry about stuff like that

Well I do agree, believe me… I just can’t seem to wrap my mind around responses to points like Joshua reversing the sun’s course or the saints being raised from the dead and yet these extraordinary events don’t seem to be verified by an extra-biblical source… I KNOW there is an answer, whether in reality, or in the intention behind these things even being written into Scripture, so I have trust in that fact, I just can’t seem to come up with the answer. When debating between different Christians it is often much easier to find areas to defend your arguments, because alot of times they are based on matters of faith or strictly from Scripture - with an athiest, they only deal in what they can see and touch, and so trying to explain why something hasn’t been proven in sources outside the Bible is harder for me - afterall, its not enough to make me turn my back on my faith in God, but its the human in me that gets wrapped up in questions like this, and they start to annoy me ‘why wouldn’t such events be verified by others who would have seen them??’…

I appreciate your response!

 

[Liberian]

The Guided Heart,

I’ve not followed the link you provided, but I’d like to address the points you bring up. You say that various events “don’t seem to be verified by an extra-biblical source;” this shows a very basic, very implicit, and very sneaky bias. The bias is that “if it’s in the Bible we assume it’s false; if it’s not in the Bible we assume it’s true.” After all, many of the events described (for example) in Caesar’s “Gallic Wars” are not verified by other sources; do we then dismiss them as false? Certainly, making the sun and moon stand still is somewhat more spectacular than crossing a river, but then we are dealing with the God Who created the Heavens and the Earth and who tracks the path of every electron, quark, photon, and neutrino in the universe. Making the sun stand still or parting the Red Sea is a small thing.

Incidentally, Herodotus tells of reading some ancient (even in his day) Egyptian records which tell of the sun moving backwards twice. If somebody wants extra-Biblical verification of Joshua’s long day (and of the sun moving backwards in Hezekiah’s day), there you have it.

At the very bottom, however, is the fact that the Catholic Church is not based on the Bible. The faith we have is not so much what we believe in as it is Whom we believe in, and what we have heard is based not on what we read but whom we listen to. We learned the Catholic faith from reliable witnesses, who learned it from reliable witnesses, and the chain goes back to those who walked with Jesus two thousand years ago. The Bible is only part of it.

Atheists who do not believe in the existence of a supernatural have a basic contradiction on their hands. C.S. Lewis writes about it very well in his book Miracles. The gist of it is that if there is nothing but the natural world, then our thoughts are the result of nothing more than the motions of the molecules in our brains. If this is the case, then there is no reason to think that they bear any relation to the actual workings of the outside world beyond cause and effect–certainly nothing as abstract as “truth.” It could be argued that our thoughts are more-or-less accurate because that is good for survival, but that only means that our thoughts are good for survival, not that they are true. And so the assumption that nothing exists besides the natural world leads to the conclusion that logical thought is impossible. I have never heard an atheist answer this argument; the best that any has done has been to distract attention from it.

• Liberian

 

[Mystophilus]

I was wondering if there are any Christian rebuttals to some of the points mentioned here, as they are typical from the secular world.

Genesis 1 and 2 differ about when animals were created, but agree that God created them. (Note that Ge 2:19 is altered in some translations, but the original says “formed”, not “had formed”).

The Gospels differ as to the number of angels at the tomb, but they agree that angels were there.

They differ about when the stone was rolled away, but agree that it was rolled away.

They differ about what Jesus rode into Jerusalem, but agree that he rode some kind of donkey.

I could go on, but you get the point.

History, i.e., our modern picture of what happened in the past, is constructed from as many sources as we can find. It is highly unusual for those sources to agree completely. In fact, when they do, we often suspect that they have been altered by some later hand in an attempt to ‘resolve’ their differences. Instead, we look for general agreement, and then we construct a picture of what probably happened, the probability being based upon the degree of agreement, disagreement, or contradiction between the sources.

As far as the Bible goes, its degree of agreement with external sources is very high, and its degree of internal consistency is very high. This makes it a ‘good historical source’.

This does not mean that every word in it is literally true, but consider this: if it were meant to be literally true in every word, why were Genesis 1 and 2 included? Why were four, differing Gospels included? Were all, and I really do mean every single one of the scribes, the educated experts who read, reread, and passed on these texts so incredibly stupid that they were incapable of noticing these things?

The Bible is not all literally true, nor was it understood to be so by the people who collected it together: it is a collection of honest attempts at representing what people thought had happened.

 

[Ron_Conte]

It is true that not all the Bible is to be understood literally. However, there are no real contradictions between the Gospels or any other books of the Bible.

In my experience, persons who cite supposed flaws in the Bible do not accept even a reasonable or probably explanation as to why it is not a flaw. They want the Bible to have flaws so that they can ignore any of its teachings that they dislike. So giving them explanations as to why the Bible is without flaw is ineffective.

They need faith, not explanations.

Ron

 

[Mystophilus]

It is true that not all the Bible is to be understood literally. However, there are no real contradictions between the Gospels or any other books of the Bible.

While I would agree with the proposition that there are no significant contradictions, because the message of the whole text depends upon the whole of the text rather than upon individual verses, there are numerous contradictions in details.

This should not be forgotten, unless one wants to go around asserting things that anyone with a search engine can easily refute. Obviously, not all of the readings in that list are good ones, but quite a few are.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are no real contradictions at all once the true meaning of the passage is understood because Scripture is entirely without error.

In my opinion, Providentissimus Deus contains an infallible papal definition that the Bible is entirely without error:

But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

The contradictions listed on that site are only apparent contradictions.

Ron

 

[Mystophilus]

There are no real contradictions at all once the true meaning of the passage is understood because Scripture is entirely without error… The contradictions listed on that site are only apparent contradictions.

When you say that they are only apparent contradictions, do you mean that Genesis 1, which explicitly places the formation of animals before the formation of humans, does not contradict Genesis 2, which explicitly places the formation of animals after the formation of humans, because neither of them is actually meant to be a literal chronology (i.e., the reading which says that Genesis 1 presents humanity as the pinnacle of creation, whereas 2 presents us as the centre), or do you mean something else?

Likewise, when Matthew says that the colour of the cloak which the soldiers put on to Jesus was κοκκινην, deep red, and Mark says that it was πορφυρουν, purple, do you regard the difference and the detail both as unimportant, since there is no contradiction regarding the event of the Crucifixion, the scourging, and the giving of the cloak?

In Matthew 28:2, the stone is rolled away from Jesus’ tomb after the women arrive, in a violent earthquake. In Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1, it is rolled away before they arrive. How do you read this without contradiction? Do you essentialise the message, and say that the stone was rolled away at about the time that the women arrived?

I am quite curious as to how you resolve these conflicting versions, mostly because I am wondering whether you believe that there cannot be a literal contradiction and so those passages do not actually say different things, or whether you believe that there cannot be a semantic contradiction and so those passages disagree only about details which are not actually part of the message.

In other words, do you believe that all of the Bible is literally true, or that the message of the Bible is completely true, while the occasional historical detail might be inaccurate?

 

[Ron_Conte]

When you say that they are only apparent contradictions, do you mean that Genesis 1, which explicitly places the formation of animals before the formation of humans, does not contradict Genesis 2, which explicitly places the formation of animals after the formation of humans, because neither of them is actually meant to be a literal chronology (i.e., the reading which says that Genesis 1 presents humanity as the pinnacle of creation, whereas 2 presents us as the centre), or do you mean something else?

Genesis 2 is not a chronology, it is explaining the reason why animals were created: for us. So you are right that the meaning is not a literal chronology. In other words, Scripture is obviously not asserting that the animals were created second.

Likewise, when Matthew says that the colour of the cloak which the soldiers put on to Jesus was κοκκινην, deep red, and Mark says that it was πορφυρουν, purple, do you regard the difference and the detail both as unimportant, since there is no contradiction regarding the event of the Crucifixion, the scourging, and the giving of the cloak?

There is no contradiction because purple, in ancient times was not the bluish purple of today, but a very reddish purple, i.e. a shade of scarlet.

In Matthew 28:2, the stone is rolled away from Jesus’ tomb after the women arrive, in a violent earthquake. In Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1, it is rolled away before they arrive. How do you read this without contradiction? Do you essentialise the message, and say that the stone was rolled away at about the time that the women arrived?

Matthew says that the women started out for the tomb. Then he describes the rolling back of the stone. He does not say that the women were present, they were perhaps still on the way to the tomb. Also, just because two verses are presented in a particular order does not mean that that was the order of the events, e.g. the order of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels might be group according to topic not chronological order.

I am quite curious as to how you resolve these conflicting versions, mostly because I am wondering whether you believe that there cannot be a literal contradiction and so those passages do not actually say different things, or whether you believe that there cannot be a semantic contradiction and so those passages disagree only about details which are not actually part of the message.

Neither. Not every passage is to be interpreted literally. No assertions of Scripture on any topic, however, small or detailed, can be false. But one must first understand what Scripture is asserting. Two verses in a particular order is not an assertion that the events occurred in that order.

In other words, do you believe that all of the Bible is literally true, or that the message of the Bible is completely true, while the occasional historical detail might be inaccurate?

Neither. The Bible is true in all that it asserts as true, even in historical details, but it is not to be taken literally in every passage.

Ron

 

[Mystophilus]

Genesis 2 is not a chronology, it is explaining the reason why animals were created: for us. So you are right that the meaning is not a literal chronology. In other words, Scripture is obviously not asserting that the animals were created second.

So, you do not consider the second account to be literal. What about the first?

There is no contradiction because purple, in ancient times was not the bluish purple of today, but a very reddish purple, i.e. a shade of scarlet.

From a Greek perspective, those two are different. They even had different sources: κοκκινης dye was derived from berries; πορφυρους came from a shellfish.

Matthew says that the women started out for the tomb. Then he describes the rolling back of the stone. He does not say that the women were present, they were perhaps still on the way to the tomb. Also, just because two verses are presented in a particular order does not mean that that was the order of the events, e.g. the order of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels might be group according to topic not chronological order.

A claim that the verses are not in chronological order would be very difficult to support, as it contradicts the natural pattern of narrative flow. Further, you might note that, in Matthew 28:1, it does not say that the women started out for the tomb: it says ηλθεν, ‘they came’. The location is the tomb, and the action is complete.

Not every passage is to be interpreted literally. No assertions of Scripture on any topic, however, small or detailed, can be false. But one must first understand what Scripture is asserting… The Bible is true in all that it asserts as true, even in historical details, but it is not to be taken literally in every passage.

What is your basis for deciding when a passage is not literally true?

 

[Angelos]

Blessings to all,

Everyone reading the Bible should bear in mind that apparent discrepancies - or as one might like to call them “overt contradictions” - are mostly results of double narratives of the same story recounted from different perspectives to be finally worked into one single text. For instance, there are two stories of creation in Genesis, the first relating the whole creation from God’s perspective alone. The second story is derived from the first one emphasizing man’s likeness to God among all the other creatures: Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.” God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them. (Genesis 1: 26-27). The second story illustrates how God’s will for man to rule over the other creatures is accomplished through the authority granted to Adam by God: “The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.(Genesis 2: 19).

Notice that even the creation of plants is narrated in the second story in association with man’s creation from the soil: Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2: 5-7). Man’s placement in the garden by God is again related to the agricultural task given to the man by his God: “ The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it.” (Genesis 2: 15).

 

[Angelos]

I would like everyone to study 1 Samuel, which is a foremost example of a text replete with double narratives that are defined by many as contradictory. So there are two stories of Saul’s appointment as King, of Saul’s disobedience, of Saul’s acquaintance with David, of David’s appearance in front of a foreign King, of David’s sparing Saul’s life. How would you comment on these narratives? They definitely have something in common since a specific pattern is employed throughout the text. Of all these double narratives, the first always recounts an unofficial event that is made official through a complimentary incident, which makes up the second. Thus, Samuel appoints Saul King of Israel, but the official ceremony of coronation takes place later when Saul is brought before the whole Israeli assembly. Saul’s first disobedience is related to his offering a personal sacrifice whilst the second disobedience stems from his army’s wish to offer sacrifices by going against Lord’s command (In both instances, Saul as a servant of the Lord and the head of the army fails to obey the commandments).

For the other doublets, they indicate the significance of the army in Saul’s and David’s lives. David meets Saul first when he is taken into his house as a result of his being a good harpist, and David’s second meeting with Saul is actually David’s manifestation to Saul’s army as a result of his being a great warrior. When David escapes to Gath alone, the Philistines consider him insane; but when he goes to the same King a second time with his army, the Philistines welcome and honor him as a great leader. David spares Saul’s life first when Saul is alone in a cave, and he does the same thing a second time when Saul encamps with his army.

 

[theguidedheart]

Just wanted to chime in real quick and say I have appreciated the critical perspectives in these posts on this type of attack on Christianity, I will keep reading as you guys talk these issues out more, but so far they have been right on.

I appreciate the responses!

Peace

 

[xspike77x]

Does anyone have an explanation for the apparent contradiction that is occuring between these two verses?

2 Samuel 12:13-14, And David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan said unto David, “The Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed tho hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is born unto thee shall surely die.”

Deuteronomy 24:16, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers, everyman shall be put to death for his own sin.”

I am looking for an explanation because I am trying to dialogue with an agnostic so I would appreciate any help I can get. Thanks.