Why We Should All Doubt the Bible

Why We Should All Doubt the Bible

For many centuries it was held unquestioned, authoritative, and perfect, but science and research have created numerous problems for believers in the Bible. Through the context of history, science, and critical textual analysis we find not only a reason to doubt but to abandon the belief entirely. Good beliefs are founded on good reasons. What is a 'good' reason? I think if we are to call something a good reason to believe it should clearly fit these three distinct criteria.

First, the evidence in support of a claim should come from an unbiased source or as close as we can get to that goal. Everyone has natural biases but to call it a 'good' reason we need to weed out biased accounts or data. Secondly, the evidence must be falsifiable. We should all be willing to move with the evidence. And if our beliefs are not challenged by evidence then they deserve no serious consideration. Finally, the evidence we have must be able to stand on its own and not rely on unjustified assumptions. Faith is not justified when we talk about our reasons for belief. We must allow the evidence to stand or fall on its own and not prop it up with ad hoc explanations to skew the data to fit our beliefs.

Our default position should always be one of unbelief until the moment that it is reasonable to believe. Which means we should treat the Bible like an outsider would and not accept it at face value. We should study, research, and strive to understand if we have any reasons to believe it. It is important what's true. These beliefs affect individuals, society, and whole countries so we should be careful what we allow to influence us. Because what we think affects how we act.

History and the Bible

It makes sense, to begin with, the beginning and in it, we see the first of many conflicts with history. Genesis lays out a framework for creation that directly contradicts what we know. From science, we understand the sun came before the plants but the Bible has it the other way.[1] Now, how can this possibly be? We know that plants thrive off the sunlight and days without any sun at all would not have fared well for them.

Before we can delve any deeper into this issue we must address the numerous attempts to reconcile the mess. Genesis is viewed very differently depending on whom you talk to. Perhaps they have good reasons to think it's metaphorical or literal, but I don't think it solves the issue. Let's say we believe that Genesis is a metaphor for humanity and their decisions. I have no issue believing that could be the case. It does read much like a fable with a moral point that is being conveyed. However, my main gripe with this view of Genesis is that it ignores many of the New Testament authors who clearly believed it literally.

In Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus is explaining to his disciples how serious the final judgment will be. He goes on to give a comparison that the disciples definitely would have understood having been raised with the scriptures. It reads, "just like in the days of Noah so shall it be at the coming of the Son of man" And in Mark 10:6 Jesus says "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female" a reference to Adam and Eve presumably. Clearly, Jesus believed Genesis as real history, not a metaphor. So did other New Testament authors like when Paul said in Romans that, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"[2]

It seems clear-cut that Genesis was a real event in time and space for these people. It was as real as any other event. If this is the case then we find the Bible in serious error here. The order of creation is a jumbled mess and the story of Noah is not only untrue but it was clearly copied and edited for the Hebrew people. Earlier accounts like the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Sumerian Flood Myth, and Atrahasis Epic are examples of the Bible's way of changing stories to fit their culture. They have very strong similarities and it shows how they based their stories on the cultures around them. They all contain a god or gods sending a flood, a boat being built, and the survival of a specially selected person or group of people. The Genesis account doesn't stand out from the bunch as anything other than a rehashed story from other surrounding cultures.[3] 

Even if we accept that the metaphorical reading is the most accurate reading we still have a problem. Genesis contains the foundation for the reasons that Jesus had to die for us. He died to save us from the curse that Adam and Eve began. They chose to rebel and from that moment every human was dead in their sin and only Jesus' sacrifice on the cross could save us. If Genesis 1 is metaphorical then why are there real consequences attributed to real people?

Moving on to the second book of the Bible we find the legendary story of Moses and the Exodus from Egypt. Almost if not all of this is entirely fiction and none of it has ever been substantiated by evidence. There was no record that the Israelite people were ever in Egypt, especially to the extent displayed in Exodus.[4]

It is also a curious thing that the Bible fails to mention which Pharaoh it was who ruled during the time of the Exodus. This has made dating this event much more difficult. The dates for the Exodus range from 1491 BCE as Usher proposed or even as late as 1213 BCE.[5] We also lack any Egyptian records about the Hebrew slaves, the plagues, or the Exodus itself.

Some apologists assert that Egypt didn't report its losses so of course, we wouldn't find this in their records. With almost two million slaves if we include women and children, it seems like a stretch that not one record would be made. With the amazing miracles and plagues, one would think someone would have made a record of this. Moreover, that many slaves in a single file line would stretch over 800km. That is far too massive a number of people to have gone unnoticed.

Not only do we lack written records but we see evidence that Egypt during some of the proposed dates for the Exodus was prospering and expanding. If plagues of this magnitude had really happened I think it would have set Egypt back. Despite all of these plagues Egypt carried on and seemed unaffected by the might of the Hebrew God.

Even if we ignore all of this there is still the problem of their forty years of wandering. You would think along the way some people would die or stuff would be left and we would find traces of that. Yet again we are left with absolutely nothing. The modern scholarly consensus is that none of this happened, at least the way it's portrayed in the Bible.

Moreover, we find not only an issue with the personal story of the Exodus from Egypt but of the primary character Moses. We now have good reason to doubt Moses was real.[6] Moses, when he was born, was a secret and had to stay hidden in a basket in the river. This wasn't an original idea, like many ideas in the Bible, it changed and modified from other cultures. An earlier story about Sargon of Akkad has very similar traits.

"My mother, the high priestess, conceived; in secret, she bore me She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid She cast me into the river which rose over me."

Later on, Sargon becomes ruler and builds a vast and powerful empire. If we compare this to the Moses story it reads nearly the same in many ways. But, the difference is Sargon was a real person, and we have no reason to believe Moses was.

If God inspired this book it wouldn't have these errors. As not to focus on only the Old Testament let's look further ahead at the New Testament. Not only does the history in the Bible contradict known history, but it also contradicts itself internally. In the account of Jesus' death, we find many small but obvious conflicts. Who carried the cross, Jesus or Simon of Cyrene? The synoptic Gospels all agree that Jesus got help from Simon. However, in John, it says nothing of Simon but states, "Carrying his own cross he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha)" These cannot both be correct either Jesus carried his cross the whole way to Golgotha or he had help.

In Mark 15:23, often thought of as the earliest Gospel by scholars, it says, "And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not." On the other hand, in John 19:29-30, the latest dated Gospel by scholars, it says, " A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit." So in John, he accepted the drink and in Mark he rejected it, and the drinks in both Gospels were different, seemingly creating a discrepancy in the details of Jesus' death.

Finally, one more example to literally put the nail in the coffin of biblical perfection. Jesus' last words do not agree with each other in any of the gospels. In Matthew and Mark we find this phrase, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" with a small difference in the word for God. Mark uses the Aramaic word, Eloi, but Matthew uses the Hebrew word, Eli. In Luke it says, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit" and in John, it reads, "It is finished". A small paraphrase wouldn't be an issue, but these are completely different last words that mean different things. They contradict each other in one of the most pivotal moments of the gospel story. That should be a huge, glaring red flag for a believer. Why can't they agree on such a small detail? You would think these last words would be burned into the minds of those witnessing their beloved Teacher and Lord die. Yet, it seems like they are telling different stories for different purposes.

However small these errors may seem they tell us something about the gospels. Obviously, those who wrote the gospels were not eyewitnesses, wrote much later, and were not divinely inspired. Not only does it seem that way through the lack of harmony, but scholars have shown it by a variety of methods. Paul shows no knowledge of the Gospels in his letters and we could infer it is likely that the gospels were a later composition. How much later is where scholars diverge in their opinions. However, they usually fall into a commonly accepted range with Mark being written between AD 66–70. With Matthew and Luke following sometime between, AD 85–90, and John coming later around AD 90–110.[7]

With so much time separating the events of Jesus' life to the writing of the gospels it makes sense we have errors. It would be perfectly understandable in any other text, but not for one inspired by God. The idea of errors in the Bible sits uneasily with many believers. A supposed error in the Bible would make their God a liar. Others would see no problem and openly admit that their Bible has errors because humans are fallible. While I can admire the honesty of the latter position I think it weakens their argument for the Bible being divine. Why would you believe in Heaven if you have an issue accepting the mundane details of the Bible? Heaven is a far greater claim than did Jesus drink wine or vinegar. The greater the claim the greater the evidence needs to be to justify it.

So whatever type of Christian you are and however you view scripture I think there are issues. If you believe it's perfect then that is easily shown to not be the case. However, if you believe it is not and has errors throughout then why call it divine? Anything that is divine wouldn't read like this. So as far as history the Bible falls short. It fails to record history accurately or wholly.

Science and the Bible

Through the lens of science, we can dig deeper into the Bible and uncover more conflicts. In Proverbs 13:24 we read this piece of advice, "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." The Bible here is openly stating if one does not beat their kid they do not love them. It is associating spanking or beating with good and loving discipline. However, we now know through many studies on this topic that spanking or any sort of physical discipline is not only ineffective but potentially harmful. It teaches kids violence and aggression.[8] It also doesn't go after the reason kids act the way they do. Today we have much better forms of discipline that are more effective and more ethical.

One would think if this was divine wisdom that this wouldn't have made it in. This verse has done real harm to kids and parents alike. It teaches us that we do not love our kids if we are not willing to beat them. That is just a poor argument. Sadly even today many people, especially in America, still think that spanking or physical forms of discipline are good. This is large part due to the overwhelming Christian influence on our society. People desire to fit in and not spanking your kids goes against the status quo. I think we would have abandoned this awful practice long ago had it not been for verses like these.

For more unscientific myths we don't have to go far. In Genesis chapter 7 we see the story of the Flood that covered the world. In so many ways this has been proven impossible and unhistorical.[9] The geological column of the earth disproves the flood. We always find the older rock on the bottom and the newer rock layers on top. Moreover, we always find the fossils of less developed organisms at the bottom and as they develop more we see them closer to the top. This indicates evolutionary theory and an old earth. Neither which is possible from a literal reading of Genesis.

If we accept a flood happened how did the animals survive? There would not be enough food on the ark for the herbivores, and every time a carnivore ate that species would be one closer to extinction. The ark would have been high in the atmosphere to have covered the highest mountains. Therefore, the animals and people on board the ark would have had to deal with extreme temperatures. In a time with no heating, no refrigeration, and limited help it seems already past the pale of possible.

Even if the animals somehow survived the trip Noah and his family wouldn't have. The amount of waste disposal, the amount of time taken to care for the animals, and lack of supplies would have had Noah working around the clock. Moreover, for every date provided for a global flood, there were civilizations who lived right past it.

Even if we ignore all of this evidence against the flood story we still are no closer to making sense of it. How did the animals get to the ark in the first place? How did they survive afterward with such a small genetic pool? How did all the animals repopulate so quickly all over the earth in a matter of decades? How did humans reproduce quick enough to start work on a city and tower only shortly after? It's clear this did not occur but Jesus believed it did.

We could go ahead and throw this in the metaphorical bin of Christian stories and resolve it. However, I think that is dishonest. The Bible clearly portrays Noah and his family as real living people in the real world. It by no means makes Noah a fairy tale. While it was obviously copied from earlier stories people really did believe it. If we are letting the Bible and the authors speak for themselves it sounds literal. It's only because of scientific inquiry that there is serious doubt about Noah's Ark. Sure, there were doubters before, but it's now popular to not believe Noah's Flood. While a couple of hundred years ago you would be hard pressed to find such a consensus.

Verses like Isaiah 40:22, "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;" are used by apologists to suggest the Bible is scientific. Supposedly this is a reference to the spherical earth and expansion of the universe. We know this is not what this verse says.

The word used for a circle is the Hebrew word khoog. A circle is not a ball or a sphere. The word used here is more similar to a compass or a disk. This is not the best word choice if the intended meaning is a ball. The Hebrew word Dure, which means ball, would have been a better fit. However, the word used is not dure, but khoog. Many verses come together to form the Hebrew cosmology. In it, the earth is held by pillars, in the center as the sun rotates us, in a dome fixed with stars in the heavens. The earth suspends by gravity and the earth rotates the sun not the other way around. The book of Joshua has a miracle of an unnaturally long day because God stopped the sun. However, if they wanted to prolong the day they would need to stop the Earth in its rotation, not the sun. It is no surprise they got this wrong. The Bible often describes things by what they seem to do and not what they are. For example, whales are fish, bats are birds, and the sun rotates the earth. These are all wrong but understandable for the ancient world.

A creator should understand his creation and it's what makes these errors so troublesome. God shouldn't have to wait for centuries of science and classification to properly understand his creatures or the sun. Throughout the Bible, we see glaring misunderstandings of creation with things such as stars, animal classification, the shape of the earth, outer space, and much more. It is astounding the lack of knowledge the writers of the Bible had. It seems as if an all-knowing God didn't get to make his edits.

Prophecy and the Bible

We find in Ezekiel 26:1-21 a prophecy concerning Tyre. It goes on to say that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it would never be rebuilt

"I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the Lord; I have spoken, declares the Lord God."

Now Nebuchadnezzar didn't destroy Tyre, in fact, he comprised with Tyre after a 13-year long siege on the city. So, he failed to destroy the city. However, later on, we know from history that Alexander the Great was the one who overthrew and conquered the island city of Tyre. Now, it seems like we have a failed prophecy from a simple reading of it.

Aplogists don't give in easy here and that's fine, but I think their apologetic falls short. They like to cite verse 3, "therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves" This supposedly proves that it was a multi-nation effort and never was it expected that only Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Tyre. That's fine, but the same passage also says the city would never be rebuilt. Yet, today we have Tyre and people live there.

A problem with prophecy is it is often vague and lacks an expected time frame. This allows the readers to reinterpret it to fit modern events. A well-formed prophecy is explicitly clear about what will happen and exactly in what time frame. If these two qualifiers aren't meant then it's a lot less impressive.

In Isaiah 19:18 it states, "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction."

But Egypt never spoke the Canaanite language. There are no records of such a thing happening. More than that the Canaanite language is extinct. Now, it is possible but unlikely that Isaiah was talking about Hebrew. However, even if Isaiah was talking about Hebrew, there are no records of this ever happening either. He further insists they will make sacrifices to God and praise him. All of this which doesn't happen now as it did at that time.

The sacrificial law has been mostly done away with and the priest to perform them as well. This by all accounts seems a reference to ancient Egypt. Many prophecies about Egypt never happened. Such as Nebuchadnezzar ruling Egypt, Egypt being desolate for 40 years, and the Nile River drying up.

Some prophecies like the virgin birth of Christ, Jesus being born in Bethlehem, or Jesus' return to Egypt are all examples of misunderstood prophecies. What I mean is none of these events were prophesied in the Old Testament. But through poor translations or misreading, people believe they are.

Starting with the virgin birth claim in Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel"

The argument primarily focuses on the Hebrew word "almah" translated virgin here. By definition and usage, this describes a young woman of marriageable age. The reason virgin became the modern translation is that the Septuagint translates it as the Greek word parthenos, which means virgin. The writer of Matthew used the Septuagint mainly and so he saw this as a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus.

"But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,

and they shall call his name Immanuel”

(which means, God with us)."

A few problems with this view. First, the word clearly doesn't mean virgin. If that was the intended meaning a better word was available. For such a supernatural claim we should have clear language and not an ambiguous term. Second, the whole prophecy in context is about the immediate dangers that Judah faced from Syria and Israel. God is comforting Ahaz and tells him that before this boy is old enough to pick right from wrong he will have overthrown his enemies. And finally, Jesus was never named or called Immanuel, but Yeshua which both mean different things. Yeshua means to save, to rescue, or to deliver. Emmanuel means, God with us. Looking at everything together I think clearly shows this prophecy was never meant for Jesus. While there are prophecies that do concern the Messiah, this is not one.

One more example of reading what isn't there is found in Micah 5:2

"But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth from me one who is to be ruler in Israel whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days."

This supposedly is a passage telling us that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. However, the first glaring issue is that Bethlehem Ephrathath is not a city but a clan or family of people. Micah is saying that from this clan a ruler will come. Furthermore, if we keep reading down to verse six it obviously is talking about a military leader. Micah 5:5-6 states,

"And he shall be their peace. When the Assyrian comes into our land and treads in our palaces, then we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men;they shall shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its entrances; and he shall deliver us from the Assyrian when he comes into our land and treads within our border."

This hardly sounds like Jesus' life or ministry at all. Again this wasn't about Jesus, but a future leader who would drive back their enemies.

Conclusion

Considering everything presented I think we have little reason to consider the Bible divine. Moreover, I sincerely believe that these and a plethora of other reasons give us good reason to abandon belief. This is not me saying the Bible is absolutely wrong and everything in it is a waste. However, I am saying that the Bible is a very dubious source at best and flat-out wrong at its worst. We should be good skeptics about what we have been taught and question everything.

While the Bible is widely accepted and revered I don't think it holds up to critical examination and questions. It collapses on itself like a dying star. When we search history, science, and the original text of the Bible it brings forth problem after problem. All of this and more accumulates to an overwhelming mountain of evidence that we have no reason to believe the Bible.

I am no expert on any subject I have discussed, and there are far smarter, more brilliant, and more persuasive writers out there. They have gone into greater detail and have shed more light on many issues here. I am by no means trying to place myself in that league. But, I am hoping to be the tip of the iceberg for someone. These are important questions and deserve good answers.

All in all, I think I have made my case. We should all doubt the Bible. Although a bigger leap, I think we should all make the next step and abandon belief. I see no good reason that the extraordinary claims made here are true. What is or isn't true is worldview-altering and if the Bible is wrong it can change your life. So ask hard questions and demand good answers and if after searching it out and you find nothing abandon belief.

Citations: 

[1]Genesis 1:11[1]
[2] Romans 5:12[2]
[3]http://faculty.etsu.edu/odonnell/2011fall/engl3130/student_writing/noah_and_gilgamesh.htm[3]
[4] The Oxford History of the Bible. Pg 63-64 https://books.google.com/books?id=4DVHJRFW3mYC&pg...
[5]James Usher. The Annals of the World.[5]
[6]The Biblical Archaeologist, American Schools of Oriental Research, Scholars Press, Vol. 56, No 1, 2 March 1993 pp.25-35, p.33: 'the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure.[6] 
[7] When Were The Gospels Written?While we differ on the dates slightly even from a website supportive of the Bible is fairly close.  There are no absolute dates and dating the gospels is very challenging.  However, most people agree on rough dates approximately close to the dates I gave.[7] 

[8] Risk of Harm From Spanking Confirmed
 

We Known Enough Now To Stop Spanking Our Kids "these studies provide the strongest evidence available that physical punishment is a risk factor for child aggression and antisocial behaviour." 

[9] The Impossibility of Noah's Ark [9]