reflect downward the light of the luminaries and to prevent the melting of the
firmament. [Edward Grant, Planets, Starr, and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos
1200-1687, first paperback ed. (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press), 1996, p. 103; and Grant, "Journey Through the Spheres: The Cosmos in
the Middle Ages," lecture delivered at Rice University, Houston, Texas on
Friday, March 14, 1997, https:// scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/101]
• Sixteenth Century:
Martin Luther, in his Lectures on Genesis, writes of "this marvelous expansion
of thick mist Moses calls a firmament... (whose) Maker gave solidity to this fluid
material."
John Calvin, unlike Luther, is more influenced by astronomy than the Bible,
and he writes: "Things that we observe plainly show the fixed stars are above the
planets, and that the planets themselves are placed in different orbits ... the sun,
moon, and stars are not confusedly mixed together, but each has its own position
and station assigned to it" [John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms,
trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), Psalm CXLVIII, p.
305]. Calvin also admits that the biblical description of the moon as one of only
"two great lights" is at odds with astronomy: "If the astronomer inquires
respecting the actual dimensions of the planets, he will find the moon to be less
than Saturn"; but Calvin excuses such a gaffe by claiming Genesis 1 features a
"gross method of instruction." [Commentary on Genesis, trans. John King
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), pp. 79, 87; see also Scott M. Manetsch,
"Problems with the Patriarchs: John Calvin's Interpretation of Difficult Passages
in Genesis," Westminster Theological.7ournal67 (2005): 13-15.]
I'm willing to bet that the ancients, not having the benefit of Calvin's
astronomical knowledge, held a more Lutheran view of the cosmos; compare
their opinions below:
"Moses describes the special use of this ragia, `to divide the waters from the
waters,' from which words arise a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to
common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the
heaven" [Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, trans. John King (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1948) pp. 79, 87].
"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in
the firmament of the heaven, below and above which ... are the waters. ...
We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think
about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like
those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe
them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in
conformity with our understanding" [Martin Luther, Luther:r Works, vol. 1,
Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan (St. Louis, MI: Concordia,
1958), pp. 30, 42, 43].
• Nineteenth Century:
Anglican theologians and scholars contribute to a book that sums up the
growing challenge to interpreting Genesis and other parts of the Bible in a literal
fashion. One contributor writes, "The root [of ragia] is generally applied to
express the hammering or beating out of metal plates; hence something beaten or
spread out. It has been pretended that the word ragia' may be translated `expanse'
so as merely to mean empty space. The context sufficiently rebuts this" [C. W.
Goodwin, "On the Mosaic Cosmology," Essays and Reviews (West Strand,
London: John W. Parker and Son, 1860), p. 220 n. 1]. Two contributors to Essays
are indicted for heresy and lose their jobs, but are reinstated later. Published four
months after Darwin's On the Origins of Species, more copies of Essays are sold
in two years than of Darwin's Origins in its first twenty.
60. John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One.- Ancient Cosmology and
the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), p. 16.
ost Christians claim they have a reasoned faith. This faith claim is
based on the Bible being the word of God in some meaningful sense. But
modern scholarship has shown us that the canonical Bible:
1. is inconsistent with itself,
2. is not supported by archaeology,
3. contains fairy tales,
4. contains failed prophecies, and
5. contains many forgeries.
Given all this, the Bible cannot be considered an inspired-"God breathed" -
document. Rather it seems to be written by a superstitious people who were
creating God in their image, as Ludwig Feuerbach charged. Therefore
Christianity is not a reasoned faith. It cannot stand up to critical scrutiny.1
THE INCONSISTENT BIBLE
That the Bible contains verses that stand in direct opposition to each other has
been known for a long time. Pagan critics of Christianity such as Celsus (second
century CE) and Porphyry (third century CE) already noted the discrepancies
between the Old and New Testaments and between the various books of the New
Testament.' We find Augustine (354-430 CE) trying to defend the Bible against
such accusations in one of his letters to Jerome (347-420 CE), by claiming "...if
in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to
truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the
translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to
understand it."3 The problem with such an apologetic strategy is obvious: it's a
circular argument. This explanation is based on the prior assumption that the
Bible is divinely inspired, or inerrant, in the first place. An in-depth analysis of
the inherent problems with such a stance taken by evangelicals today can be
found in Robert Price's books, Inerrant the Wind-The Evangelical Crisis of
Biblical Authority, and in Beyond Born Again.4
These errors begin in the first few chapters of Genesis with the creation
accounts. In Genesis 1:12 we read that the land had produced vegetation on the
third day before the creation of Adam. Yet we read later in Genesis 2:5 that there
was no vegetation until after Adam was created. In Genesis 1:20-25 we read that
the animals were created on the fifth and sixth days of creation, all before Adam.
Yet in Genesis 2:18-19 we're told they were created after Adam, when seeking to
find him a companion. In a rather desperate attempt to "cover up" this obvious
fact, the evangelical translation of the Bible, the New International Version
(NIV) translates Genesis 2:18-19 as follows:
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a
helper suitable for him." Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground
all the beasts of the field and all the birds 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. [emphasis added]
The NIV translators changed the simple past ("formed") into the perfect past
("had formed"). Translating it this way has the effect of obscuring the difficulty
in this passage. By using the perfect past, the passage could now be read to mean
that animals had already been created prior to Adam. But as Hector Avalos
points out in The End of Biblical Studies, such a translation is inconsistent, for
earlier in Genesis 2:7, the NIV translates the same form of the Hebrew verb
using a simple past tense (i.e., Genesis 2:7 -"and the Lord God formed the man
from the dust of the living ground ..."). Fudging the translation to get rid of
difficulties in the biblical accounts is a common tactic of many evangelical
versions of the Bible.'
There are similar errors in the story of Noah's ark and the Flood. In Genesis
6:19-20 we read that Noah brought two of every kind of animal into the ark, and
that no separation is made between clean and unclean animals (the word "every"
before the kind of animal excludes the possibility). Then just a few verses later
in Genesis 7:2-3, we read where Noah brought even more animals into the ark.
There we read that Noah brought into the ark seven pairs of every kind of clean
animal along with two pairs of every kind of unclean animal. These are just a
few initial examples that have led scholars to discover that what is normally
called the Five Books of Moses is actually an ancient compilation of many
different documents written by different people and at different times and in
various different locations.6
But all of those kinds of errors are just the tip of the iceberg. Biblical scholar
Randel Helms, in his book The Bible against Itself, argues that "[t] he Bible is a
war zone, and its authors are the combatants." 7 Let's list just a few examples
here. We find discrepancies over the issue of racism in the Bible. God decreed
that neither the Ammonites nor Moabites shall be welcomed "into the assembly
of Yahweh; even to the tenth generation ... forever" (Deuteronomy 2 3:3). Later
we see Nehemiah (13:1-3) and Ezra (10:14-44) both deny mixed marriages
because of this. Such racist viewpoints against foreigners stand in stark
opposition to the story of Ruth though, who was a Moabite (Ruth 1:22) and
married a Jew, Boaz. She became the greatgrandmother of king David (Ruth
4:13-4:17). It seems that, depending on which prophet he is speaking to, God
could either be a proponent of racial harmony or of racial hatred.
The differences between the authors of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes cannot be
reasonably reconciled either. Proverbs extols wisdom and knowledge, telling its
readers that "a wise son makes a glad father" (Proverbs 10:1), while Ecclesiastes
disparages all kinds of wisdom and knowledge, stating that it only gives the wise
person "grief" and "sorrow" (Ecclesiastes 1:18).8 In Proverbs one is called to
help the poor. In Ecclesiastes one is simply told "not to be amazed" at poverty, as
it is a natural state of things (Proverbs 14:31; Ecclesiastes 5:8). In general,
Proverbs has a sunny outlook on life, stating that by keeping sound wisdom, one
can "walk securely" in life and sleep peacefully (Proverbs 3:21-26). Ecclesiastes,
however, extols no such thing. It says that "all is vanity" and that it does not
matter whether you are wise or strong or knowledgeable, because "time and
chance happens" to everyone (Ecclesiastes 1:2; 9:11).
In the New Testament (NT), we find a difference in views as well.9 The
apostle Paul called the Law of Moses "a curse" (Galatians 3:13), and in one
unguarded moment compared it to "dung" (Philippians 3:8). Yet we find in the
Epistle attributed to James (supposedly the brother of Jesus) a very high regard
for the same Law calling it "the Law of liberty," "the perfect Law" and "the royal
Law" (James 1:25; 2:8). Indeed what can be more contradictory than these two
verses: "[A] man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (Romans
3:28), and "[A] man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)?
Suffice it to say that the number of errors in the Bible is massive.10 The
doctrine of biblical inerrancy cannot be defended given what we find there. This
is not for want of trying. Evangelicals have expended countless hours and
published entire encyclopedias trying to reconcile these "difficulties" in the
Bible, which only ends up proving how many difficulties there are, and how
elaborately one must labor to explain them away.11
DIGGING THE GRAVE OF "BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY"
Prior to the 1970s one can be forgiven for thinking that archaeology is the
handmaid of the Bible-for one archaeological dig after another seemed to
confirm it.12 But this is no longer true. Scholars are questioning the whole
paradigm of "biblical archaeology," which starts with the assumption that the
Bible is a reliable guide for field research.13 Indeed, there is now so much
contrary evidence against the historical accuracy of the Bible that the term
"biblical archaeology" has been discarded by professional archaeologists and
Syro-Palestinian archaeology has been suggested by some practicing in the field
as a more appropriate term.14
It has long been known that the story of the great Flood told in Genesis
chapters 6-9 is a scientific impossibility. Ian Plimer, professor of geology at the
University of Melbourne, gives a thorough listing of these problems in his book
Telling Lies for God.- Reason versus Creationism. Among the evidence he cites
is the pattern of sedimentary rocks. High energy sediments, such as gravel, are
deposited during the height of floods, while low energy sediments such as
siltstone, mudstone and claystone, are deposited during the waning of floods. If
there was once a worldwide flood, we would expect a uniform worldwide
sedimentary formation with the high-energy sediments (ancient gravel, sands) at
the bottom and the low-energy sediments at the top. Yet, this is not what we find.
It's not even close on a global scale. As Plimer pointed out, if this were seen on a
global scale, oilfield geologists would have an easy job, since all sedimentary
formation would invariably have sandstone at the bottom and siltstones,
mudstones, and claystones at the top.15
Archaeological discoveries have shown that the story of Noah's ark and the
Flood wasn't even an original Hebrew tale. In the nineteenth century
archaeologists unearthed twelve ancient clay tablets in an excavation on the
banks of the River Tigris in modern-day Iraq. Contained within the tablets is an
ancient tale known as The Epic of Gilgamesh. This epic tells the story of
Gilgamesh, a Sumerian king who purportedly lived around the middle of the
third millennium BCE. Gilgamesh, in his quest for immortality, set out on a long
journey to look for his ancestor, Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim was already bestowed
with eternal life by the gods. Upon reaching the island of Utnapishtim's abode,
Gilgamesh was told a story by his ancestor of a great flood that once swept the
world. The similarities between this story and that of Genesis (6:5-9:19) are
astounding. Just as in the Genesis story of Noah, the Gilgamesh epic tells how
the gods wanted to destroy the world with a worldwide flood (cf. Genesis 6:11-
13). Likewise, a single man, Utnapishtim, was called by the gods to build an ark
to save himself, his family, and all kinds of animals (cf. Genesis 6:14-19). Just as
Noah's ark c
ame to rest on "the mountains of Ararat" when the waters subsided,
Utnapishtim's ship came to rest on top of the "Mountain of Nisir" (cf. Genesis
8:4). After the flood, like Noah, Utnapishtim released a few birds. When the last
bird did not return, he knew the waters had abated (compare Genesis 8:6-12).16
As the famed archaeologist Cyrus Gordon (1908-2001) showed us in The
Bible and the Ancient Near East, the scholarly consensus holds that the Genesis
story is dependent on the Gilgamesh epic.1 7 This consensus is reached mainly
by considering the following facts:
• Floods are a common occurrence in ancient Mesopotamia, while Israel is,
in general, an arid land. We would expect stories of floods to be told by
people who are familiar with floods.
• The geographical setting of Noah's story-having the ark rest on a
mountain at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates-points toward
Mesopotamia as its origin.
• The Gilgamesh epic was very well known throughout the ancient Near
East, a fragment was even found in ancient Israel.
• Babylonia was the dominant civilization of that time, while Israel was a
"backwater of sorts." The general historical trend is for a dominant culture
to influence a lesser one through its culture and myths.18
Turning next to the Patriarchal Narratives, the stories in Genesis about Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are also no longer considered historical by most
scholars competent in the field.19 The reasons are compelling:
• Genesis 11:26-28 says that Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldees."
Estimates of Abraham's lifetime fall anywhere between the twenty-third
century BCE and the sixteenth century BCE, yet the Chaldeans as a people
only came into existence around the eighth to seventh century BCE-long
after the time of Abraham.20
• Genesis 26:1 relates a story about Isaac going to Gerar to meet with
"Abimelech, king of the Philistines." Archaeological finds tell us that there
was no city of Gerar and no king of the Philistines to meet with Isaac
during the historical period in which he would have lived.21
• Genesis 12:14-16, 24:10-11, and 37:25-28 include the use of domesticated
camels in the story of Abraham and of Joseph. The archaeological evidence
shows us that camels did not become domesticated until the eleventh
century BCE, well after the time of Abraham and Joseph. Camels could not
have been used during the time of the patriarchs.22
• Genesis 17: 9-11 tells of the covenant between God and Abraham, which
was sealed by the act of circumcision. We know that circumcision was
widely practiced in ancient times in the Fertile Crescent. In particular, the
Egyptians and the Canaanites practiced the rite, the very people with whom
Abraham would have had the most contact. How could the act of
circumcision be "a sign of the covenant" between God and Abraham when
everyone else was doing it? It was only during the time of the Babylonian
captivity, during the sixth century, that this custom could have set the Jews
apart. For the Babylonians of that time did not practice circumcision.23
Thomas Thompson, professor of Old Testament at the University of
Copenhagen, noted with ironclad logic, that if these and other specific references
in the patriarchal narratives have been shown to be anachro nistic, then they add
nothing to the story; but these very references were the historical anchors that
supposedly rooted the narratives into history in the first place. Without them how
are we to distinguish these narratives from other completely mythical folk tales?
Why Faith Fails The Christian Delusion Page 19
