Answers for Those Who Dismiss the Bible and Don’t Believe in God and Jesus

February 28, 2024

Answers for Those Who Dismiss the Bible and Don’t
Believe in God and Jesus
By Dennis Christian

Contents
I. Introduction
II. Humanist/atheist claims against the veracity and reliability of the Bible
III. Christian apologetic responses to those claims
A. The Bible is not a reliable document; it fails to hold up under each of the five types of biblical criticism:
1. Textual criticism
2. Historical criticism
The Top Ten Claims Against the Bible’s Historical Reliability
(1) Claim #1 The JEPD Theory (or Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch)
(2) Claims #2 and #3 The Genesis creation account is merely borrowed from ancient Near Eastern myths, and The Genesis Flood is an overblown version of other ancient legends
(3) Claim #4 The Patriarchal Narratives are myths.
(4) Claim #5 Isaiah is not a literary unity to be attributed to the prophet Isaiah
(5) Claim #6 Daniel is not prophecy, it is history made to look like prophecy
(6) Claim #7 The Synoptic Problem
(7) Claim #8 The Gospel of John is anti-Semitic and different from the Synoptic Gospels
(8) Claim #9 The Historical Jesus (the Jesus of history is not the Christ of faith)
(9) Claim #10 Paul is the founder of a Hellenized Christianity that changed Jesus’ Jewish gospel message
3. Source criticism
4. Traditional criticism
5. Form criticism
6. Redaction criticism
7. Criticism centering on the historical Jesus
B. The Bible contradicts itself
– Old Testament
– New Testament
C. The Bible contradicts the laws of nature
D. The Bible teaches miracles and supernatural events, which are scientifically impossible
E. The Bible discourages a scientific approach to problems
F. Belief in miracles harms the world
G. The Bible approves outrageous cruelties
H. The Bible approves disproportionate punishments
I. The Biblical God is violent and that incites human violence
J. The Bible teaches incorrect ideas about the structure of the physical world
K. There are many false prophesies in the Bible
L. Other problems with the Bible
IV. Conclusion
Included at the end is a copy of: An Apologetic Response to Objections Concerning the Historical Truth of Christianity by Dr. Kevin Maxwell

I. Introduction
Last year I asked a fishing buddy what his hope was for what comes after physical death. His answer startled me. He said “I don’t have any hope for that. Everything in the Bible can be debunked in thirty minutes!” He acknowledged that he did not believe in God. I went on to say I did believe the Bible and briefly shared the gospel. I did not want to get into a debate and, in fact, didn’t have all my answers lined up to counter his statement about the Bible being debunked. This article is an attempt to respond to those who don’t believe in God because they don’t believe the Bible. It is also intended to equip believers, including me, with knowledge so we can respond when a person makes such a statement as my fishing buddy. People who make such statements are grossly misinformed – misinformed and led astray by atheists and secular humanists who discredit the Bible and God by spreading their opinions and assumptions to defend their unbelief.
This paper will also help one who believes in God but does not believe the Bible. For the one who does not believe in God and claims the Bible is false, this paper addresses those claims. To those who don’t believe in God, the logic and evidence for believing can be found at www.findpeacewithgod.com and click on Why Believe in God. I would also suggest you read I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek.
I think the only way to respond to “Everything in the Bible can be debunked in thirty minutes!” is to calmly and confidently reply that they must be misinformed and ask for specific reasons or evidence for their view. Then as they bring up a reason, kindly and gently explain why that is a false view by giving specific data or evidence to counter their claim. Obviously, you must have done your homework on what their various objections are and the Christian responses to them. That’s what I aim to provide with this article.
Acknowledgments: I reference many apologetic websites and articles and quote large sections of their material. I don’t claim any credit for the material herein but join with all the authors in trying to make known our collective defense for the veracity and reliability of the Bible.

Note to unbelievers: If you have a claim against the Bible that is not covered in this article, please send it to me at dennischristian@embarqmail.com and I will respond to you.

II. Claims against the veracity and truthfulness of the Bible
Here is a list of claims against the veracity and truthfulness of the Bible from Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible – American Humanist Association.
1. The Bible is not a reliable document; it fails to hold up under each of the seven types of biblical criticism: textual criticism, historical criticism, source criticism, traditional criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and criticism centering on the historical Jesus
2. The Bible contradicts itself
– Old Testament
– New Testament
3. The Bible contradicts the laws of nature
4. The Bible teaches miracles and supernatural events, which are scientifically impossible
5. The Bible discourages a scientific approach to problems
6. Belief in miracles harms the world
7. The Bible approves outrageous cruelties
8. The Bible approves disproportionate punishments
9. The Biblical God is violent and that incites human violence
10. The Bible teaches incorrect ideas about the structure of the physical world
11. There are many false prophesies in the Bible
12. Other problems with the Bible

III. Christian apologetic responses to those claims
Let’s take these one at a time, look into the specifics of each claim, and then show why the claim is false.
A. The Bible is not a reliable document; it fails to hold up under each of the five types of biblical criticism.
1. Textural criticism: This deals with identifying the original or nearest to original text or texts. Critics claim the Bible is unreliable because there are no original manuscripts in existence today, and the earliest copies are 2nd century. But the truth is that the Bible has the oldest and the most copies of the original text of any ancient literature. These charts compare the textual veracity of other ancient literature to various New Testament texts:

The authors in the first table represent the major classical writers of antiquity – the writings that have shaped the development of Western civilization. On average, they have been passed down to us by 10-100 manuscripts that are preserved starting only about 1000 years after the original was written. The table comprises data (classical writers) that are accepted and used by academics and universities world-wide
The second table shows the Biblical (New Testament in particular) writings for these same measures. The number of New Testament manuscripts is so vast that it would be impossible to list them all in a table, so they are not in the table. As one scholar who spent years studying this issue states: “We have more than 24000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today… No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the ILIAD by Homer is second with 643 MSS that still survive”
As you can see, the Bible copies are much closer to the time of writing of the original texts. This is a major factor in textual accuracy. This and the vast number of extant copies show that from a textual criticism standpoint, the veracity of the New Testament texts far surpasses that of other ancient yet universally accepted texts.

2. Historical criticism: This seeks to interpret biblical writings in the context of their historical settings. It draws upon not only exegesis and hermeneutics but also such fields as history, archaeology, and classical scholarship in an attempt to reconstruct the historical setting within which biblical texts were produced and the historical consistency of those texts. Why are the historical claims of the Bible important? If the Bible’s historical claims are not true, it would be right to doubt its religious ones.
The following link discusses the top ten claims against the accuracy of the historical information in the Bible. The Top Ten [Claims] Against the Bible’s Historical Reliability — And How to Answer Them – Shepherds Theological Seminary Please read it for a comprehensive defense against these claims. Following is a shortened version:

Careful responses to each of the ten specific objections have been offered by believing scholars. Here are their responses:
The denial of the Bible’s historicity due to its inclusion of the miraculous or of otherwise-unattested accounts is based on one’s predisposition against the Bible’s truth claims—not evidence to the contrary. The Bible refers to real people and events in a manner that truthfully conveys the divine Author’s message. The believer’s reading of the Bible’s historical literature is based upon the presupposition that there is a God, and He has spoken truthfully in Scripture.

Those with presuppositions to the contrary must acknowledge the oft-cited dictum: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In other words, it is unscientific and irrational to claim that the Bible is historically inaccurate if evidence cannot disprove the Bible’s historical claims—and hard data disproving biblical history is simply not available. If one claims that the Bible is historically unreliable on the basis of their anti-supernatural worldview, this should be admitted.

Where both the Bible and extra-biblical sources provide attestations to the same event, the Bible’s historicity has been confirmed.
1. Claim #1: The JEDP Theory (or Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch)
A comprehensive apologetic against this claim is located here:
The Documentary Hypothesis: Moses, Genesis, and JEDP | Answers in Genesis

The shortened answer
First, what is The Documentary Hypothesis? Called by various names such as the Documentary Hypothesis, the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis, the JEDP Theory, or even simply a composite view of the Pentateuch, adherents claim that the Torah is not a literary unity and Moses did not write it. Rather, it was invented as a propaganda piece during or immediately after the exile by editors (redactors) who needed to convince the exilic Jews to resettle in Judea.

Apparently, the creation of a divine promise of land to Abraham, a story of an evil Pharaoh, and a heroic deliverer named Moses would do just the trick to convince these deportees to return to the land of their forefathers. The editors pieced together various strands of oral and written sources to form the so-called Books of Moses. Generally, the theory holds that there were four editorial sources or schools of thought (J = Yahwist, E = Elohist, D = Deuteronomist, and P = the Priestly source) that informed and contributed to the process of forging their independent and competing views into the text we have in our Bibles today.

Reasons to Reject the Documentary Hypothesis: There are many reasons to reject this claim on the Bible. First, consider what the Bible itself says about the authorship of the Pentateuch.
a. Biblical Witness to Mosaic Authorship:
(1) The Pentateuch states that Moses wrote these books: Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:1–2; and Deut. 31:9–11. In his rejection of Mosaic authorship, Dr. Wellhausen nowhere discussed this biblical evidence. It is easy to deny Mosaic authorship if one ignores the evidence for it. But that is not honest scholarship.
(2). We also have the witness of the rest of the Old Testament: Josh.1:8; 8:31–32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1; Dan. 9:11–13; and Mal. 4:4.
(3). The New Testament is also clear in its testimony: Matt. 19:8; John 5:45–47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Rom. 10:5; and Mark 12:26. The divisions of the Old Testament were clearly in place in the Jewish mind long before the time of Christ, namely, the Law of Moses (first five books of the Old Testament), the Prophets (the historical and prophetic books) and the Writings (the poetic books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). So, when Jesus referred to the Law of Moses, His Jewish listeners knew exactly to what He was referring.
Note that some of the references back to Moses’ work. For example, John 7:22 and Acts 15:1 refer to Moses giving the doctrine of circumcision. Yet John also reveals that this came earlier — in Genesis, with Abraham. Nevertheless, it is credited to Moses because it was recorded in his writings. The New Testament attributes all the books from Genesis through Deuteronomy as being the writings of Moses. So, to deny the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Old Testament then is to deny the truthfulness of the rest of the biblical writers and Jesus Himself.
(4). Moses’ Qualifications to Write: Not only is there abundant biblical witness that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Moses was fully qualified to write the Pentateuch. He received an Egyptian royal education (Acts 7:22) and was an eyewitness to the events recorded in Exodus to Deuteronomy, which contain many references or allusions to Egyptian names of places, people, and gods, as well as Egyptian words, idioms, and cultural factors. He also consistently demonstrated an outsider’s view of Canaan (from the perspective of Egypt or Sinai). And as a prophet of God, he was the appropriate recipient of the written records or oral traditions of the patriarchs from Adam to his own day, which the Holy Spirit could use to guide Moses to write Genesis. There is no other ancient Hebrew who was more qualified than Moses to write the Pentateuch.
(5). Fallacious Reasoning of the Skeptics: A final reason for rejecting the documentary hypothesis and accepting the biblical testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is the erroneous assumptions and reasoning of the liberal scholars and other skeptics.
(a) They assumed their conclusion. They assumed that the Bible is not a supernatural revelation from God and then manipulated the biblical text to arrive at that conclusion. They were implicitly deistic or atheistic in their thinking.
(b) They assumed that Israel’s religion was simply the invention of man, a product of evolution, as all other religions are.
(c) Based on evolutionary ideas, they assumed that “the art of writing was virtually unknown in Israel prior to the establishment of the Davidic monarchy; therefore, there could have been no written records going back to the time of Moses.” This claim not only denys the intelligence of the ancient Israelites, but also the Egyptians who trained Moses. Were the Egyptians incapable of teaching Moses how to read and write? Since the time the documentary hypothesis was first proposed, archaeologists have discovered scores of written records pre-dating the time of Moses. It is hard to believe that Israel’s ancient neighbors knew how to write, but the Jews could not.
(d) Liberal Bible scholars allegedly based their theories on evidence from the biblical text and yet they evaded the biblical evidence that refutes their theories. Theirs was a “pick and choose” approach to studying the Bible, which is hardly honest scholarship in pursuit of truth.
(e) They arbitrarily assumed that the Hebrew authors were different from all other writers in history — that the Hebrews were incapable of using more than one name for God, or more than one writing style regardless of the subject matter, or more than one of several possible synonyms for a single idea.
(f) Their subjective bias led them to illegitimately assume that any biblical statement was unreliable until proven reliable (though they would not do this with any other ancient or modern text) and when they found any disagreement between the Bible and ancient pagan literature, the latter was automatically given preference and trusted as a historical witness. The former violates the well-accepted concept known as Aristotle’s dictum, which advises that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the document itself, rather than the critic. In other words, the Bible (or any other book) should be considered innocent until proven guilty or considered reliable until its unreliability is compellingly demonstrated.
(g) Although many examples have been found of an ancient Semitic author using repetition and duplication in his narrative technique, skeptical scholars assume that when Hebrew authors did this, it is compelling evidence of multiple authorship of the biblical text.
(h) The skeptics erroneously assumed, without any other ancient Hebrew literature to compare with the biblical text, that they could, with scientific reliability, establish the date of the composition of each book of the Bible.
(i) To date, no manuscript evidence of the J-document, E-document, P-document, D-document, or any of the other supposed fragments have ever been discovered. And there are no ancient Jewish commentaries that mention any of these imaginary documents or their alleged unnamed authors. All the manuscript evidence we have is for the first five books of the Bible just as we have them today. This is confirmed by the singular Jewish testimony (until the last few centuries) that these books are the writings of Moses.
b. The JEDP/Documentary Hypothesis is not the Same Thing as the Tablet Model of Genesis
These two ways of dividing Genesis are not the same at all. The tablet model (which we endorse) is based on the Hebrew word toledoth, which appears 11 times in Genesis (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2) and helps to tie the whole book together as a single history. Our English Bibles translate toledoth variously as “this is the account” or “these are the generations” of Adam, Noah, Shem, etc. Scholars disagree about whether each toledoth follows or precedes the text with which it is associated, though we are inclined to agree with those scholars who conclude the former. In this case, the name associated with the toledoth is either the author or custodian of that section. Regardless, the 11 uses of toledoth unite the book as a history of the key events and people from creation to the time of Moses.
Unlike the JEDP model, the tablet model gives attention to these explicit divisions provided by the book itself. These divisions represent either oral tradition or written texts passed down by the Genesis patriarchs to their descendants, which Moses then used to put Genesis into its final form.

c. Answering a Few Objections
A number of objections have been raised by the proponents of the documentary hypothesis. Here are answers to some of the most common ones.
(1). Moses couldn’t have written about his own death, which shows that he didn’t write Deuteronomy.
The death of Moses is recorded in Deuteronomy 34:5–12. These are the last few verses of the book. Like other literature, past and present, it is not uncommon for an obituary to be added at the end of someone’s work after he dies, especially if he died very soon after writing the book. The obituary in no way nullifies the claim that the author wrote the book.
In the case of Deuteronomy, the author of the obituary of Moses was probably Joshua, a close associate of Moses who was chosen by God to lead the people of Israel into the Promised Land (for Moses was not allowed to because of his disobedience), and who was inspired by God to write the next book in the Old Testament. A similar obituary of Joshua was added by an inspired editor to the end of Joshua’s book (Josh. 24:29–33).
(2). The author of Genesis 12:6 seems to imply that the Canaanites were removed from the land, which took place well after Moses died.
“Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land.” (Gen. 12:6; NKJV). (Then underlined for emphasis)
“Then” implies that Moses knew beforehand that the Canaanites were driven from Canaan by Joshua. So, another argument against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is that an author, after Moses, had to have written this verse (Gen. 12:6). The very reason they argue this is due to the fact that Moses died prior to the Canaanites being removed, which occurred in the days of Joshua who began judging the Canaanites for their sin. But Moses’ faith in God’s promise that Canaan was Israel’s promised land would have led Moses to believe the existing inhabitants (Canaanites), which were there even back when Abram passed through, would have to leave. Thus, this objection has no merit.
(3). Genesis 14:14 mentions the Israelite region of Dan, which was assigned to that tribe during the conquest led by Joshua after Moses died. So, Moses could not have written this verse.
“Now when Abram heard that his brother19 was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. He divided his forces against them by night, and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.” (Gen. 14:14–15; NKJV).
Genesis 14:14 mentions Dan. However, Dan in this context is not the region of Dan that Israelite tribe’s inheritance given when the Jews took the Promised Land, but a specific ancient town of Dan, north of the Sea of Galilee. It was in existence long before the Israelites entered the land. Jewish historian Josephus, just after the time of Christ, said:
“When Abram heard of their calamity, he was at once afraid for Lot his kinsman, and pitied the Sodomites, his friends and neighbours; and thinking it proper to afford them assistance, he did not delay it, but marched hastily, and the fifth night attacked the Assyrians, near Dan, for that is the name of the other spring of Jordan; and before they could arm themselves, he slew some as they were in their beds, before they could suspect any harm; and others, who were not yet gone to sleep, but were so drunk they could not fight, ran away.”

(4). The author of Genesis 36:31 obviously knew about kingdoms in Israel which were only present well after Moses, so Moses could not have written this.
“And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.” Genesis 36:31
Such a claim is without warrant. Moses was clearly aware that this had been prophesied about the nation of Israel when the Lord told Abraham (Gen. 17:6) and Jacob (Gen. 35:11) that Israel would have kings. Also, Moses, himself, prophesied in Deuteronomy 17:14–20 that Israel would have kings. So, knowing that kings were coming was already common knowledge to Moses.

2. Claims #2 and 3: The Genesis creation account is merely borrowed from ancient Near Eastern myths. The Genesis Flood is an overblown version of other ancient legends.

The Babylonian creation account, Enuma Elish, and various other ancient cosmologies (stories of world origins) were adapted by the Hebrews to fit their religious views and form the Genesis account. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic and other flood narratives pre-date Genesis, so the biblical story must have been borrowed from these other ancient Near Eastern flood narratives. Genesis is just more familiar to the Western world because its stories are preserved in the Bible.5 The Scripture’s creation account outlasted the many others through an evolutionary process of survival of the fittest—though biblical monotheistic faith is no longer so fit for public discourse in the West today.

A comprehensive apologetic against this claim is located here:
Is Genesis 1–11 a Derivation from Ancient Myths? | Answers in Genesis
The Shortened Answer
All over the world we find cultural legends and myths that closely resemble certain accounts in Scripture, such as the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel accounts.1 Oftentimes, these accounts are used as an external confirmation of the credibility of Scripture.
If one accepts the account of Scripture that we are all of “one blood” (Acts17:26), he should also accept the biblical account that all human heritage goes back to the city of Babel where all human population once lived after the global Flood of Noah’s day. We would expect to find common accounts of history (such as Creation and the Flood) within the stories and traditions of today’s people groups that once lived together in one place after the great Flood. Given years of cultural diversity as mankind spread throughout the world, it is also not surprising that these stories have taken on their own cultural influences in the retelling.

Thus, there is no basis or proof that the Hebrew record was derived from the Babylonian or any other account of creation and the flood even if these other recorded accounts pre-dated the Hebrew account. They are separate accounts of commonly known history.

3. Claim #4: The Patriarchal Narratives are myths
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never really existed; they were made up by scribes to promote Jewish nationalism during the exile. It is now customary in many academic circles to admit to the existence of only historical figures for which we have corroborating evidence from sources outside of the biblical record. If there are not clear references to such figures in extra-biblical texts, their historical existence is unverified and therefore assumed to be part of mythic hero stories. This not only eliminates the patriarchs, but Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Samuel, and even King David. It is not really until the time of Israel’s Divided Monarchy that extra-biblical sources begin to provide us with multiple attestations to the lives of biblical personages. Therefore, their existence is doubted or simply regarded as part of the cultural folklore of the Israelites. Critics consider these Bible heroes as little more than Jewish versions of Paul Bunyan, John Henry, or Superman.
Response: The book On the Reliability of the Old Testament by world scholar on Egyptology and the Near East Kenneth A. Kitchen published in 2003 made clear that such claims above are not supported by the facts. He systematically pulled together all available extra biblical data including the most recent archeological discoveries and compared them to the biblical narrative. His 500-page, detailed study showed that the history and characters of the patriarchal period of the Old Testament are most likely real – not mythical fabrications of the post-exilic era.
Summary of Response: Here is a review of his book, this one by Mr. James Korsmo from Good Reads:
“If you have watched any Nova or National Geographic specials on pretty much any facet of the Old Testament over the past few years, it very quickly becomes obvious that a rather stark historical minimalism is dominant in the scholarly world, or at least the scholarly world they feature. And this could be dismissed as just media bias, but a similar minimalism is also quite prominent in the OT academic circles and is evidenced in many introductory OT textbook. So, what in the OT is historical? The Bible certainly treats the major characters and events in the OT as historical, and it builds its understanding of God and his character from God’s acts in history (God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the exodus). So, if the OT was entirely made-up history, a fictional construct from after the exile to give a rag-tag band of people an identity, that would have pretty profound implications for how we understand God and how we understand the Bible”
“The book is filled with detail. It is 500 pages of discussion of the evidence and the various approaches to its reconstruction along with careful evaluation of how the historical and archaeological data coheres with the Bible, along with another 150 pages of notes, diagrams, and indices. That’s all to say, he deals with all of the major issues that arise out of this wide-ranging subject matter. This mountain of detail and discussion is made easily navigable by its good organization, helpful use of charts, and its concise summaries at the end of each chapter.”

“Kitchen’s careful conclusion is that the minimalism so prevalent in the academy and in popular scholarship today is merely a relic of past assumptions now eclipsed by the evidence. He concludes his investigation of whether the Biblical writings were composed entirely within the postexilic period (400–200 B.C.) or whether they reflect their purported historical settings by asserting, with regard to the divided monarchy, exile, and return, that the Bible’s accounts of these periods “show a very high level of direct correlation (where adequate data exists) and of reliability.” And, concluding on what can be said of the historicity of the accounts before the united monarchy, when direct evidence is more difficult to find, that “the Hebrew founders bear the marks of reality and of a definite period.” Thus, he concludes that the Bible’s historical accounts make sense in the times that they purport to represent, and don’t give evidence of a postexilic invention so popular in academic circles. I must also say that while Kitchen’s study is indeed detailed, it is also entertaining, as he shows a warm and sometimes scathing humor as he looks at historical evidence or at rival historical reconstructions. The book was enjoyable to read, and is a very helpful push back against the minimalism that can begin to erode Biblical faith. It certainly isn’t the last word on any of these matters, but it is an important and substantial tome that will need to be reckoned with. And if you’re not ambitious enough to dig in to all of the data, selective reading of especially important topics and careful reading of all of the introductory and summary materials makes for a good overview of the relevant materials.”

4. Claim #5 The Old Testament book of Isaiah is not a literary unity to be attributed to the prophet Isaiah
Since Isaiah could not have known in 700 B.C. about the later existence of a king named Cyrus or of his decree to release the Jews from captivity in 539 B.C., the mention of his name in Isaiah 45:1 must reveal the hand of a later writer or editor of the book. Further, the book of Isaiah cannot be a literary unity because the focus on God’s judgment that prevails in chapters 1-39 is so contrary to the message of comfort and restoration beginning in chapter 40. This shift from judgment to promised restoration suggests that the same author who wrote chapters 1-39 could not have written chapters 40-60. Chapters 1-39 are the work of First or Proto-Isaiah, and chapters 40-60 are referred to as Deutero-Isaiah (or Second Isaiah). Distinctions are further drawn in the literary style, historical background and theological concerns of chapters 40-55 and 56-60, this third section is then called Trito-Isaiah (or Third Isaiah). The trend is to differentiate between three editorial groups that each had a part in the multi-author composition that we now call Isaiah.
Response Here is a link to a detailed rebuff of the claim that three different people must have written Isaiah: The ACU Commentary and the Unity of the Book of Isaiah | Christian Courier

Summary of Response:
First, the claim is based on the belief that predictive prophesy is impossible revealing their atheistic bias. Second, there is internal evidence in Isaiah which place chapters 40-66 before the Babylonian captivity, not after it (see 40:9; 62:2, where Jerusalem and other cities are still standing)
The argument based upon alleged stylistic differences is highly subjective. The fact is, language similarities are found throughout the narrative. The “highway” terminology is employed in the different sections (cf. 11:16; 19:23; 35:8; 40:3; 62:10). The expression “the Holy One of Israel,” a title for God, is found only thirty-two times in the Bible. Twelve of these are in Isaiah 1-39, and fourteen are in chapters 40-66. Arguments of a similar nature could be multiplied many times over (Martin 1985, 1030).
In the latter sections of the book, allegedly written in the Babylonian and post-Babylonian era, there are numerous references to Judah’s idolatry (cf. 41:19; 44:14; 57:4ff; 65:2-4). Yet it is well-known that the Hebrews did not practice idol worship after the fall of Jerusalem. And language symbolism in the latter segments of the book is drawn from geographical features that relate to Palestine, not Babylon.
There is also external evidence. For ages the unity of the book was accepted by Jews and Christians alike. The critical theories are only a couple of hundred years old. Even liberal writer A. B. Davidson admitted: “For nearly twenty-five centuries no one dreamt of doubting that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, was the author of every part of the book that goes under his name” (in Robinson 1954, 59).
There is no indication in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the third century B.C.) that the book had a multiple authorship.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, that contain an Isaiah manuscript, argues against the Deutero-Isaiah theories. For example, chapter 40 (allegedly the commencement of Second Isaiah), begins on the very last line of a column which contains chapter 38, verse 9, through chapter 39, verse 8. Noted scholar Oswald T. Allis observed: “Obviously the scribe was not conscious of the alleged fact that an important change of situation, involving an entire change of authorship, begins with chapter 40” (1950, 40).
Finally, we might ask if Isaiah did not author the material in chapters 40-66 of that ancient work, just who did? It is incredible that the Hebrews would not have preserved the authors’ names, in view of the Jews’ careful handling of the Scriptures. In some of the ancient Scripture collections, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were bound together, yet the authorship of these two books was never confused. That such a gross tragedy should mysteriously occur in the instance of the book of Isaiah is inexplicable. The case for the unity of the document is overwhelming!

5. Claim #6: Daniel is not prophecy; it is history made to look like prophecy
The book of Daniel is so detailed in its description of the events of the Maccabean period (c. 168-134 B.C.) that it must have been written at that time. Instead of its claim to have been written by a sixth-century Judean captive turned prophet, the book of Daniel was written in the second century B.C. when anyone could have made up prophetic claims after they happened. The book was invented as propaganda to encourage Jewish resistance against Greek (Hellenistic) persecution.7

Response: For a comprehensive defense against this claim go to this link:
Daniel Discovered: 2.4 – Date (spiritandtruth.org)
Summary of response
One of the main criticisms is that Daniel prophecies the future, and that is impossible – no one knows the future. This reveals the critics’ atheistic bias. If there is a God who created the universe and us and is sovereign, he has power to control the future, not to mention His power of foreknowledge. Note: Atheists presume there is no God – they cannot prove it. Their exclusion of all the possibilities if God does exist is a dishonest bias. Many if not most of their arguments would vanish if they accepted the possibility of God. To be honest, they should qualify their arguments into two categories: one that assumes there is no God and one that assumes God exists. If one excludes the possibility of God, then the whole Bible is a sham since it is admittedly the story of God’s dealings with mankind.
Another problem for this claim is the nearly universal identification of the first four kingdoms of chapters 2 and 7 (see Sequence of Kingdoms) as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The problem here is that at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c. 165 B.C.), Rome was not the major influence in Palestine that Daniel’s predictions describe. “Rome . . . not being in Daniel’s time known beyond the precincts of Italy, or rather of Latium . . .”16 It was only after Pompey made Judea tributary to Rome in 63 B.C. that Daniel’s predictions concerning Rome began to come to pass. Therefore, some method must be found to dismiss the prophecies concerning Rome since the critics are unable to push the date of Daniel out that far. This complication is generally dispatched by ignoring the Scriptural evidence for viewing the Medo-Persian Empire as a single kingdom (Est. 1:3, 14, 18-19; Est. 10:2; Dan. 5:28‣; 6:8‣, 12‣, 15‣; 7:5‣; 8:20‣) and taking the first four kingdoms as Babylon, the Medes, Persia, and then Greece—culminating with the breakup of Greece and the events of the Seleucids and Ptolemies down to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. But this ignores the evidence within the book itself:
If then one is to pay any attention to the testimony of the text itself, it must be conceded that Daniel regards the second empire as Medo-Persian, with the Persians predominating over the Medes, rather than as Median alone. This being the case, the third empire has to be the Greek Empire, and the fourth power can only be that of Rome. Again, one is faced with conclusive internal evidence from the text that the author of Daniel predicted the overthrow of the Greek Empire by the Roman at least one hundred years (even on the assumption of the Maccabean date) before it took place. Thus, it turns out that the entire effort to explain the predictive elements in Daniel as prophecy after the event ends up in failure.
If, then, the fourth empire of chapter 2, as corroborated by the other symbolic representations of chapter 7, clearly pointed forward to the establishment of the Roman empire, it can only follow that we are dealing here with genuine predictive prophecy and not a mere vaticinium ex eventu.
Besides the “Roman Empire problem” there is also the problem of the “seventy weeks” which most understand as predicting the First Coming of Christ—an event even later than the ascendancy of Rome. But no critic has ever dared to suggest a date for the Book of Daniel as late as the birth of our Lord. Yet Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks predicts to the very day Christ’s appearance as the “Prince” of Israel. Therefore, when the critics have done their worst, no matter where they place the date of the book, the greatest time-prophecy of the Bible is left untouched. And on this prophecy the whole case of the critics goes to pieces. For if even so much as one predictive prophecy is established, there remains no valid a priori reason for denying the others.19
The critics claim much of the book was written to encourage the Jews during the Roman persecution of the Maccabean period. The Jews knew their scripture and believed it was from God. It is absurd to think that the religious Jews would derive any inspiration from contemporary writings of fictional characters.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS): Not so many years ago, one could visit any major bookstore and find books in the religious section with various sensational titles alluding to a Dead Sea Scrolls Cover-up” implying that once the evidence from Qumran was fully published, Christianity would be shown to be a fabrication of the early Church.50 These claims were shown to be sensationalism because as more material from the DDS was published it revealed the opposite: significant and early evidence of the reliability of the Hebrew Scriptures upon which our OT is based.
Evidence from the DSS upholds what conservative scholars have said: that Daniel could not have been written as late as the Maccabean hypothesis held by the critics. Among the discoveries at Qumran were fragments from cave 4 (4QDanc) which are considered to be the earliest witness to the Hebrew text of Daniel. These fragments date to the “late second century B.C.” and imply at least a pre-second-century date for the book’s origin. This evidence alone undermines the Maccabean hypothesis. But there’s more.
The article at the link above goes on to list additional proofs against the claim. They include proof from writings from Josephus, The Septuagint, The Book of First Maccabees, The Book of Enoch, The Book of Baruch, The Sibylline Oracles, historical details in Daniel, and other evidences of an earlier date.

6. Claim #7 The Synoptic Problem

As Robert Stern correctly explains, “In reading the four Gospels it is apparent that three of them resemble one another and one does not. A brief time spent in any synopsis of the Gospels will indicate that Matthew, Mark and Luke share a number of striking similarities. The ‘Synoptic Problem’ is the name that has been given to the problem of why the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke look so much alike. Why are they so similar in content, in wording and in the order of events found within them?”8

While these questions are important, legitimate, and even helpful for accurate interpretation, the answers provided by those committed to the historical-critical approach delegitimize the text by suggesting that some parts are historically accurate while others are not. It is hypothesized that the content common to Matthew and Luke which they did not borrow from Mark came from a literary (i.e., written) source that is no longer available to us. That purely hypothetical source has been called “Q” (from the German word Quelle, meaning “source”). Scholars have pieced together all the parts where Matthew and Luke have similar content that differs from Mark and are marketing a new academic book called “Q.” Even if it didn’t exist, now you can buy it!

Response: The following link points to a comprehensive response to this claim:
The Synoptic Problem – Holding the Line (marcminter.com)
Summary of Response: What the critics call “a problem” is not really a problem at all. It is more a contemplation of how the four gospels came to be. Different from John, writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the synoptics) have great similarities – almost word for word in some places – yet they have differences as well. The claim from critics is that some of the authors used the other’s gospel as source material for their own, and critics claim this means some were not inspired by the Spirit as all scripture is claimed to be. It makes sense that those who wrote the gospels would check to see what source material was available and make use of it, including a gospel already written.
They would also interview those living who spent time with Jesus and include information they had both oral and written such as notes they may have taken. Certainly, they would have interviewed the apostles, May Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Jesus’ brothers and sisters assuming these were still living. That does not obviate the inspiration of the Spirit as each writer penned his gospel. The critics seem to think inspiration of the Spirit means that the Spirit dictated word for word to the writer. As the article referred to above says:
“Divine inspiration of Scripture is not to be confused with automatic writing, dictation, or any other obliteration of human authorship. In fact, the beauty of God’s word is that it comes through the means of such common instrumentality. Historical developments, culture, personal research, education, life experiences, and a host of other influences came to bear on the gospel writers, but none of these stifled the divine revelation they conveyed as they themselves were being carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21).”

7. Claim #8 The Gospel of John is anti-Semitic and different from the Synoptic Gospels
John portrays “the Jews” as the collective enemy of Jesus who willingly accept blame for Jesus’ crucifixion (John 19:15; see also Matt 27:25, “His blood be upon us and upon our children”) and shows Jesus calling Jews “children of the devil” (John 8:44).

While John’s Gospel is more thematic and topical rather than chronological—like the Synoptics— these differences are often not accepted simply as an indication of its different purpose or literary style. It is suggested that Jesus, the rabbinic sage, would never have said many of the things found in the fourth Gospel. John invented a new emphasis on miracle stories to authenticate his unique perspective on Jesus’ deity. These differences between John and the Synoptics are emphasized to suggest that since it lacks the same chronological framework seen in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is therefore not historically reliable.11

Response: The decision to look at John’s Gospel this way entirely overlooks the fact that both Jesus and John were themselves Jewish. The doctrinal disagreements recorded by John were part of a heated in-house debate. And John’s references to “the Jews” are provided for the benefit of Gentile readers in order to help them understand that the good news of the Messiah came from Israel. After all, it is the same Gospel of John that records Jesus saying very boldly to the Samaritan woman, “Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). But those who would like to dismiss this book’s powerful message with the disgraceful label of anti-Semitism conveniently overlook these points.
As Jewish believer and seminary professor, Robert I. Vasholz, observes, “Moses is the first in a succession of Jewish prophets (including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea and Amos) who call Israel to task for the profanation of her holy calling. And yet, I am not aware that the Torah or Hebrew Scriptures have ever been labeled ‘anti-Jewish.’ Why? We recognize these struggles as an intra-Jewish religious tension in an attempt to aid Israel toward the goal of her high calling; not as attempts to condemn Israel as the worst people on earth.”
The difference in style and content in John reflect his stated purpose for writing the gospel – to include the essential message of the good news story of what God did for mankind through Jesus so that all have the opportunity to hear and believe unto salvation. Thus, it did not nor did it need to include all the detail of the other gospels.

8. Claim #9 The Historical Jesus (the Jesus of history) is not the Christ of faith
The New Testament is a fanciful religious text and cannot be trusted as a reliable source for understanding the life and teachings of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth. The so-called eyewitness testimonies of Jesus’ resurrection were contrived and falsely reported as apostolic propaganda. Yes, a person named Jesus seems to have existed in the first century, but the New Testament’s descriptions of him depart from any historical kernel of truth and develop his legendary divine-hero-healer status as part of the Christian myth. If an accurate portrait of Jesus of Nazareth is ever to be seen, he must be reconstructed from historically reliable evidence—from archaeology, historical criticism, and a cautious use of New Testament texts. This comprehensively critical approach to the New Testament dismisses key Christological points such as His virgin birth, divine nature, and resurrection all at once.12

Response: For a comprehensive response read the appended article An Apologetic Response to Objections Concerning the Historical Truth of Christianity by Dr. Kevin Maxwell
Summary of Response: The claim as stated above is purely an atheistic assertion with no evidence provided to back it up. On the contrary, here are some reasons with evidence to back them up that the Jesus depicted in the Bible is the real, historical Jesus. Here is a summary of specific objections and the apologetic response to each addressed in Dr. Maxwell’s article:
Preface – There have been ample scholarly books published that bring into question the historical truths of Christianity. They provide a number of opportunities for the Christian apologist to dispense with those objections. This apologetic response paper will look at some of the objections brought up in Michael Martin’s book, The Case Against Christianity, and will offer an apologetic defense for each objection. Martin appeals to a scholar by the name of G.A. Wells for much of his criticism. Based on the views of some Christian theologians, Wells asserts that the Gospels were written some 40 to 80 years (73 to 113 AD) after Jesus’ death by unknown authors who did not personally know Jesus. Wells also asserts that much of the Gospels is legend and was influenced by these authors’ own theological motives. Wells also speculates that these unknown authors used OT wisdom literature to fabricate the Jesus in the Gospels. With this suspect view of the gospel authors, as one would expect him to say Wells states the only way to validate the validity of the Gospels is by external sources.
This response paper will address two main issues: (1) The first is the historicity of Jesus Himself, and (2) The second issue that will be addressed will flow from the conclusion of the first. If Jesus can be shown to have been a true historical figure, then we must assess His claims concerning His divine identity. The most direct way is to investigate the claims of His resurrection.
Objection 1: The claim that the gospels were written between 73 and 113 AD. Evidence shows that they were written earlier in the 1st century AD. For example, the book of Acts does not mention the Israel/Rome war or the destruction of the Temple, which occurred from AD 66 to 70. Such important events would have been mentioned by author Luke who was careful about details. Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple and Luke would have included it in his Acts if it was written in the 2nd century. Further, since Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke before Acts, the date of that Gospel had to be before Acts. Further, scholars agree that Luke likely used the gospel of Mark as input for Luke, meaning that Mark had even an earlier date. Dead Sea Scroll fragments date Mark from A.D. 50-70.
Also, from Jay D’Ambrosio of Sound of Heaven Church we have this account of evidence for a 1st century dating of Acts: “One major stumbling block to many for a 1st century dating of Acts was an account that was declared inaccurate in Acts 14. In this chapter, we find Paul and Barnabas persecuted in Iconium. Because they were in danger, they flee the city. The passage says that went to Lystra and Derbe, which were cities in the district of Lycaonia. Iconium, however, was the city in which he and Barnabas were persecuted, was in a different district.”
“Paul and Barnabas went to this different district because it was safe from the persecutions they were experiencing in Iconium. However, later Roman writers, such as Cicero, contradicted the passage, asserting that Iconium was also in the district of Lycaonia. Therefore, fleeing to the cities of Lystra and Derbe would not have made Paul and Barnabas safe from the people of Iconium.”
“For years, this was used as an example to show the historical unreliability of Acts. The argument was… how could a first-hand author get the district he was in wrong?”
“In 1910, Sir William Ramsay, a British scholar who questioned when was the Book of Acts written, but also its validity altogether, discovered an inscription declaring that the first century Iconium was under the authority of Phrygia in A.D. 37-72. It was ONLY during these years that Iconium was not under the authority of Lycaonia. That means the writer of Acts was likely reporting within that timeframe which would prove when the book of Acts was written. That time period was the first century.”
“Sir Ramsay’s discovery completely turned around what had been a rebuttal against the validity of Christianity.”
Maxwell concludes “., the gospel letters are not to be dated after 70 A.D. and into the second century A.D. There is ample internal evidence that speaks against such a dating. This disallows the possibility that the facts concerning Jesus were a later interpretation from earlier Jewish literature and mere legend. They represent factual historical information that was easily verifiable by eyewitnesses that were still alive and could quickly identify and attempt to halt any doctrinal or historical teachings contrary to the facts. Also, internal evidence speaks to other New Testament writers stressing that their information was from reliable sources, either eye witnessed or received by contemporaries of the events.”

Objection 2 There is no valid outside evidence that the historical Jesus was not the Jesus of the Gospels.
According to Dr. Maxwell. there is external evidence that speaks of the historical truths concerning the existence of a man named Jesus Christ. Although Martin denies some of the external references to Jesus from historical sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, the Talmud, and others, other scholars believe them valid. Josephus references the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and also a Jesus’ name is referenced as the brother of James in his work Antiquities of the Jews. Martin believes this to be a Christian interpolation because it does not seem to fit with the context of the writing or with the worldview perspective of the author. Martin also questions why only two references by Josephus if he really was so important to Jewish history. Most scholars do accept the James passage because it is “too non-committal” to have been a later Christian interpolation. Origen also refers to this.
The historian Tacitus wrote, “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…” McDowell says that if Tacitus had referred to Jesus by his name, then he would have had to explain how Jesus is related to Christians and if this had been a Christian source material then they would have used Jesus or Christ Jesus as a reference. Tacitus also wrote,
Tacitus also wrote “…and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” Tacitus appears to have regarded Christianity as an evil superstition. It is highly unlikely that Tacitus is recording anything but the truth as he knew it. This strongly reinforces that Tacitus does stand as an independent witness of the historicity of Jesus Christ.
Also, there were early rabbinical writings that validate historical references to things such as Jesus’ following among the Jews, Jewish involvement in His death, and healing events. Even though the Jewish establishment disbelieved Jesus was their Messiah, this is evidence that He existed and is consistent with events in the Gospels
Objection 3 Assuming Jesus existed, no one actually saw Him after the supposed resurrection except possibly Paul, and that was a hallucination.
Jesus claims of divinity were proved by His resurrection and the other recorded miracles He performed. If His resurrection were not true, the claims of Christianity are dashed as Paul himself admitted. Martin claims that Jesus’ disciples lied about His resurrection. But what benefit did His immediate followers derive from such a deceit? They endured persecution, were dispersed from their homes, suffered ridicule and hate, and gave their lives for their belief. Would someone who knew the truths of the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection subject themselves to such treatment if it was in their power to stop it?
Scholar William Lane Craig states that “Without the belief in the resurrection the Christian faith could not have come into being. The disciples would have remained crushed and defeated men. Even had they continued to remember Jesus as their beloved teacher, his crucifixion would have forever silenced any hopes of his being the Messiah.”
Taking this quote into consideration, how could we understand the actions of the disciples if they knew this was a deception or fraud? Are we to believe that they knowingly died for a lie? We would not have seen empowered preaching associated with a known deception. When Martin claims that deception is a possibility, he fails to address the historical evidence of the change in the early Christians and their zeal for their message. This zeal led them to sacrifice everything including their lives. Martin’s assertion of deceit carries no evidential weight since it provides no supporting evidence, it too is disallowed in the discussion of the truthfulness of the resurrection.
Martin raised other objections to the reality of the resurrection including the early believers were just gullible, the Resurrection stories were just vehicles of proclamation or propaganda, and inconsistencies in the gospel message accounts prove you can’t believe the Gospels. Maxwell shows why all of these arguments are invalid.
Martin claims no one actually saw the resurrected Jesus except possibly Paul, and that was a hallucination. William Lane Craig gives criterion that must be used to evaluate such claims against the Resurrection. He says to ask the following questions. “Does it have great explanatory scope? Does it have great explanatory power? Is it plausible?”
When these questions are applied to the before mentioned assertions, it becomes clear that they do not meet this criteria. Both John and Peter testify they were eye-witnesses to Jesus’ ministry including the resurrection. And for Paul to change as he did, there had to be some greater reason than a vivid imagination. When Paul’s teachings are compared to the other Christian writers of the New Testament, they correlate well. Paul does not come across in his letters as one who was struggling with internal guilt surrounding the Jewish law. He even at times subjected himself to that law in order to show that his actions were not an attack on Jewish law but that his hope in Jesus was a fulfillment of the hopes of Judaism. The Messiah had come. In Acts 21:21-26, Luke records that Paul willingly went through the purification rites of the Jews in order to show that he was not attacking Jewish law. Paul’s conversion to Christianity was not reactionary but was due to a true experience with the risen Jesus. This is the best explanation of the events.
One of the most compelling of all of the proofs for the Resurrection centers on the responses of the early followers of Christ. The disciples were willing to die for their belief in the risen Christ. Eleven of the twelve disciples died a martyr’s death for their beliefs. Arguments can be made that there are no independent eyewitness accounts from these disciples written by their own hands but as has been shown this is incorrect. Even if it were true and we only had second hand accounts written, that would not change the historical fact that these men were willing to die for what they knew to be true.

9. Claim #10 Paul is the founder of a Hellenized Christianity that changed Jesus’ Jewish gospel message
Growing out of the quest for a truly historical understanding of Jesus, critical scholarship began to rethink the origins of the beliefs of Jesus’ followers. Rather than a direct connection between Jesus and the messianic faith of His disciples, it is claimed that Paul changed Jesus’ Jewish gospel message and, as the Apostle to the Gentiles, founded a new religion that merged Greek (Hellenistic) philosophy with Jewish thought. It is claimed that the “high Christology” of the early believers—which regarded Jesus as the Son of God, equal with the Father, and Himself the creator and sustainer of all things—was introduced by Paul who borrowed such concepts from pagan Greek mythology and philosophy. The New Testament Epistles sound nothing like Jesus and the Gospels, and therefore demonstrate this parting of the ways between a Jewish sect of Jesus-followers and the Gentile Church that Paul founded. Had it not been for Paul, messianic faith in Jesus would have died a quiet death along with other short-lived Jewish sects. Most blasphemously, the critics charge that if Jesus knew what Paul had done with his teachings, he would roll over in his grave!13
Response: A comprehensive response to such claims is given here Did St. Paul Invent Christianity? | Catholic Answers Magazine
Summary of Response: Several substantive points can be made in response. The first is that the letters of Paul were written to address ongoing issues and questions in churches that were already established. They were meant to be primarily works of exhortation, not argumentation. None of them, after all, were addressed to non-believers; they were not evangelistic in nature, but aimed at exhorting, encouraging, correcting, and pastoring. Because of this, many scholars believe that Paul did not need to quote from Jesus’ teaching. Jesus and Paul had quite different roles in the “eschatological drama” of salvation history.
Paul understood himself to be a “servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God” (Rom 1:1) He didn’t simply “repeat Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom to his fellow Jews. Paul’s message was the appropriate continuity between Jesus the founder and His lead missionary to the Gentiles. Paul was deliberately and consciously implementing the Gospel of Jesus” In Paul’s own words: “According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:10-11).
Paul writes of the “meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Cor 10:1), as well as his profound humility (Phil 2:5-7), and that Paul “consistently held up Jesus’ life—and his own life as modeled on Jesus’ life—as examples to be emulated (1 Cor 11:1). In light of this, it cannot be regarded as a coincidence that Paul’s own thought, attitude, and conduct paralleled closely what we find in the Jesus of the Gospels” This is especially notable because it shows that Paul understood Jesus as a real, historical person, not as a mythic savior figure with little or no connection to earthly life.
Additional claim not covered elsewhere in this paper from Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible – American Humanist Association
Claim: Inaccurate Statements About History: The Bible’s false statements about history also bolster the Humanist position. Historians and other scholars have exposed many of the Bible’s claims as historically inaccurate.
The book of Esther purports to describe how a young Jewish girl named Esther was chosen by the Persian king Xerxes I to be queen after he had divorced Vashti. Although historians know a great deal about Xerxes I, there is no record that he had a Jewish queen named Esther or was married to Vashti.[54] Additionally, the book of Esther describes the Persian empire as having 127 provinces, but historians maintain there was no such division of the empire. Also contrary to the book of Esther, historians assure us Xerxes did not order Jews in his territories to attack his Persian subjects.
Response: From Is the Story of Esther True. Yes! In Every Detail (sciencepastor.com) we have this response:
“The humanists include three references to Stephen L. Harris’, Understanding the Bible as the source of their information about Esther. He is similar to Andrew White. He is opposed to Christianity, anti-Bible, and is not afraid to make up things to support his accusations. His book is not about understanding the Bible. It is about tearing down the Bible and replacing it with humanism. It is not a reliable reference, but we will go with what the humanists have written and answer their accusations anyway.”
“Historical Silence Does Not Mean They Did Not Exist”
“If a place or person does not show up in secular historical records, does that mean they did not exist? This is an argument from silence, and it is not valid.
Arguments from silence have not fared well when used against the Bible. Historians said the Bible was wrong because there was no historical evidence, outside of the Bible, that Hittites ever existed… then the evidence turned up. They were wrong. There was no evidence that Sodom existed. Then in 2015 archeologists announced that Sodom had been found. Historians said that there was no evidence the city of Jericho existed at the time Joshua entered the Promised Land. Then in the late 1980’s archeologists discovered they had been looking for the wrong kind of pottery, and looking in the wrong places… Jericho had been found!
Saying there are no historical records (except for the Bible) does not mean the person or place does not exist… it just means that we have no historical records, other than the Bible, concerning that person or place. And they are not willing to trust the Bible.
That is an interesting statement… not willing to trust the Bible. If they find just one broken clay tile with an inscription giving a person’s name, “Eureka!” They cry. “We know for sure that person existed.” If a fragment of a copy of one ancient document is found with a person’s name on it, “Eureka!” They shout. “We have proof that person existed.” However, the document that has more ancient copies available than any other… by far… and that has proven to be reliable over and over… the Bible, is not considered to be reliable or sufficient on its own. An argument from silence is considered stronger evidence against the testimony of the most reliable ancient document we have… the Bible. That is desperation. Desperation driven by a desire to not be accountable to the God who created them.
Let’s Look at Esther and Vashti
They are correct, there is no evidence outside of the Bible, documenting that a woman named “Esther” was a queen of Persia. However, this type of argument from silence does not provide any proof that there was no Queen Esther, nor does it take into consideration that she may have had a different Persian name.
There is some evidence concerning Vashti. For example, the Greek historian Herodotus associates the name Amesrtis with Vashti. He recorded that Amesrtis was the wife of Ahasuerus, also known as Xerxes.
On the other hand, there are very good reasons why, 2500 years later, history may seem to be silent concerning the people described in the book of Esther. How important was Queen Esther to the royalty of Persia? Political circumstances resulted in their selecting a queen from outside the royal family. Doing that was unheard of, but they had no choice. The Bible account records that, after becoming queen Esther did not spend much time with Xerxes. She was an outsider, and probably kept as an outsider. Since the royal families controlled what was recorded for history, it is likely that she would just be left out… sort of a black sheep that nobody talked about.
What about Vashti? Although she was a very capable and skilled queen, Vashti embarrassed the king, and caused a major problem for the extended royal family. It is very likely that the royal family was not interested in including her in the royal records either. Esther and Vashti? That was a troubled time that was embarrassing for us royals. We just need to forget about them.
127 Persian Provinces
The humanists claim “there was no such division.” It is difficult to know what they are claiming. Is it that the Persian Empire was not divided into provinces? Is it that the number 127 is not correct? There is no way to know what the humanists are claiming, making this an invalid claim.
A likely possibility is that they are referring to the Greek historian Herodotus recording that there were 20 satrapies. Some claim that this contradicts the 127 provinces in Esther. However, there are many problems with that claim. For example, the accuracy of the Herodotus list is in doubt:
This list [Herodotus] continues to be claimed as the basic source for the reconstruction of satrapal administration. But the chaotic arrangement of the nomoi list, which conflicts with geographic reality, its over-emphasis on the western regions, which shows that Herodotus had no authentic source at his disposal. – The Encyclopedia Iranica
On the other hand, based on the language and the great amount of detail provided in Esther, it appears only someone highly placed within the Persian government at the time could only have written the book of Esther. That person would not have made an error in the number of provinces.
However, what if the Esther story was a fabrication? Only a fool would give a specific number they did not know for sure. The number of provinces is completely incidental to the story and of no consequence. If Esther were a fabrication, the writer would have been a fool to include this detail. Since Esther is the foundation of a major festival, and it was publicly circulated shortly after the events it reports happened, an error such as this would have destroyed the validity of the festival. Keep in mind, there were eyewitnesses who would have quickly pointed out this error and ended the fiction.
If we take a realistic look at this, there is a logical reason for this type of difference in the number of provinces. The Encyclopedia Iranica points out that there is confusion about the number of satrapies, and there was most likely a hierarchical governmental structure that subdivided the satrapies into provinces.
These structures in turn determined the hierarchical construction of the satrapal system which, remaining essentially unchanged, proved a successful instrument of administration throughout the entire Achaemenid period. – Encyclopedia Iranica
With satrapies being the size of countries, it makes sense that they were sub-divided into what scripture refers to as provinces. The historical record indicates there were even smaller divisions. As far as the number, the Encyclopedia Iranica states:
To document the extent of the empire completely, it would be quite sufficient to enumerate all provinces of one specific level of the administrative hierarchy.
A reasonable assumption is that the author of Esther chose to document the extent of the empire at a level of government different from that used by Herodotus.
Did Xerxes Order the Jews to Attack His Persian Subjects?
We have another misrepresentation of scripture. The Bible does not say Xerxes ordered the Jews to attack his Persian subjects. In fact, many of the Persians, including all of the Persian government officials, joined with the Jews to defend them against their enemies. These are the facts.
#1 – The Jews had permission to use weapons to defend themselves, and destroy and kill anyone who might attack them. The Jews were not ordered to attack all Persians. They were given the right to defend themselves.
#2 – The Bible does not say the Persians wanted to destroy the Jews. Haman, who was an Agagite, was the source of the plan to destroy all Jews. The Agagites were a group of people who had been Israel’s mortal enemies for over 500 years.
#3 – The Jews were so inconsequential to the Empire that Xerxes signed a decree that they all be killed with very little thought… a decree presented to him along with the offer of a huge bribe. For this to become public knowledge, especially the part about the bribe, would be disastrous. So, it is highly likely that minimal records were made and those (if there were any records at all) may not have survived the passing of millennia. An argument from silence, such as the humanists make here, is not valid.
How Do We Know Esther Is True History?
There is powerful evidence that the story in Esther is true.
The events described in Esther resulted in the Jewish Festival of Purim. That festival began within 15 to 20 years after the events in Esther took place. (www.GotQuestions.org) People who had lived through the events described in Esther were still alive. That means we have a major festival, based on the account in the book of Esther, celebrating the salvation of the Jews from total annihilation, that began within the lifetimes of the people who experienced the events described in the book. Many of the events described in Esther took place publicly, such as the hanging of Haman. They were not something that happened within the private confines of the palace, for example, with few witnesses. It would be immediately obvious to many people, if the story of Esther were not true. There were too many eyewitnesses.
The timeline in which all this happened, and was documented, testifies that the main part of the story of Esther must be true.
Conclusion: There is no evidence that any of the claims against the book of Esther are valid. On the other hand, there is strong circumstantial evidence that supports Esther as being a true and accurate history.”

3. Source criticism: This type of Biblical criticism that seeks to determine the sources used to develop the final form of the biblical text. This field overlaps with historical criticism. Thus, its arguments were addressed above in Claims #1 through 6. Source criticism as a method is criticized itself in this article The Appeal of Source Criticism | Green Baggins (wordpress.com)
4. Traditional criticism: This type of Biblical criticism attempts to trace the developmental stages of the oral tradition, from its historical emergence to its literary presentation in scripture. Scholars of the Hebrew Bible might, for example, study the development of a narrative tradition about the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) or the judges (such as Deborah and Samuel) as it unfolded over several generations. New Testament scholars often pay special attention to the oral stage of Gospel transmission, investigating both the record of the ministry of Jesus and the development of Christian theology in the short preliterary stage.
Biblical criticisms: Critics charge that in both Old and New Testaments one reason for not trusting them is the time elapsed between the events and when they were recorded. For example, Moses is said to have written the first five books of the OT including Genesis, which had parts that dated over a thousand years before he lived. Where did Moses get his information? The same with the NT. The gospels were written 20 to 60 years after Jesus’ death. Critics say they had to rely on oral stories and traditions passed down from generation to generation, and that makes these scriptures unreliable.
Response: For a comprehensive paper on the use of oral/aural tradition in passing along information see ttps://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rfrey/PDF/166/Judaism%20Christianity/Orality%20and%20the%20Biblical.pdf
Another article defending the usefulness of preserving history via oral tradition is here The Best Argument Against the New Testament Gospels – Jason Pierce.
Excerpt from this paper: Author Jason Pierce (Duboise Ministries) asks How can we trust the oral traditions of Jesus were recorded accurately decades after the events happened? He answers,
We can. Here is his case:
“Jesus lived in a day where oral traditions were common and widely practiced because people were uneducated and didn’t read. (Books weren’t commonly published.) So, the need to write down the events of Jesus wasn’t urgent because people were mostly interested in the stories from the eyewitnesses that walked, talked, and interacted with Jesus himself.”
“Oral tradition was practiced in three ways:
1. The first model of oral tradition is called informal, uncontrolled. It’s informal in that anyone can tell the story, and it’s uncontrolled because no one is overseeing how the stories are being told. Bart Ehrman makes this appeal to corroborate his claims, which is significantly misleading. He compares it to the telephone game where one person gives a comment, and by the time it’s passed down, it transforms into something completely different.
2. The second model of oral tradition is called formal, in control. It’s formal in that only certain people tell the story, and it’s controlled because there is oversight that is taking place when the stories are told. This model is a very precise way of passing things on orally, and this is how the Jews passed down their oral traditions. It is highly effective, and some of the legal traditions that we see in Judaism is rooted in this model. It’s very rigid and ideal, but does not match what is seen in the New Testament concerning the events of Jesus.
3. The third model of oral tradition is informal yet controlled. In this model, anyone can tell the story, but if anyone tells the story in the wrong way, then there are elders among the group that will correct the story. So, in this way, the stories always have formal oversight. This model is seen in the New Testament.”

“The New Testament model for passing along oral tradition is accurate. The oral traditions were widely circulated and held accountable to the Apostles. If someone were to pass along these oral traditions inappropriately or inaccurately, there would have been fierce rejection against it. Not only widely circulated, they were told over and over until they were written down, so it wasn’t the case where they waited 30 or 60 years and then decided to document the stories. These traditions began at the time of Jesus and continued until officially documented.”
“***The second-century church called what we now call the Gospels, “Apostolic memoirs.” They were the memories of the Apostles about Jesus.*** Furthermore, the traditions of Jesus are not reliant on one person, but a whole series of people. It wasn’t that one person had the correct account, and from that one person, everything evolved.”
“Instead, the stories of Jesus were known to hundreds of people, including the people that interacted with Jesus. (The Apostles.) They oversaw what was being said in the churches and areas that were circulating the traditions. So, there is an essential difference between corporate memory and individual memory. This corporate process is a process of overseen orality. The material passed on would have been retained faithfully because of the corporate nature, the repetition, and the accountability to the original storytellers.”
“To bridge the gap further:
Paul wrote his first letter in 49 A.D., which shrinks the gap 20 years. Paul writes about his personal conversion experience in Galatians, which happened within 18 months to two years of the crucifixion of Jesus. The gap is now down to a couple of years based on Paul’s experience. Moreover, he was about the same age as Jesus, so this means that he lived in the hype of Jerusalem when all of the events overshadowed the culture, and he would have heard the stories from the oral traditions before Jesus was put to death. Paul’s presence bridges the gap and even overlaps it.”

“The final verdict:
Concerning the core ideas Jesus’ teachings, even though it seems there is a significant gap of time between what was said and what was written down that appears to obscure and evolve the events of Jesus, doesn’t exist. The people that recorded the events were the ones that lived it, passing it down in a controlled environment and held accountable for accuracy to preserve the integrity of the stories. We can have confidence that precisely what happened was documented correctly, and we can be confident that Jesus is who the Bible says he is, and did what the Bible said he did.”
Concerning Moses writing of Genesis, it is well-known that the Jews have a longstanding tradition of keeping track of their genealogies. No doubt these were recorded by each family. In addition, family history would have been passed down orally generation to generation, and these family histories would have been available to Moses through an interview process, The Hebrews had a written language and it is likely some families kept written notes of records of key events. These too would have been available to Moses. Moreover, Moses was brought up as a son of Pharoah and would have been educated in the world history of the time. Given these sources, Moses with the Spirit’s inspiration was able to write the first books. I include the Spirit’s inspiration because scripture itself states all scripture is inspired of God. That doesn’t mean God dictates it word for word; it means God led Moses to collect and write down the information correctly.

5. Form criticism: From Form Criticism – PHILOSOPHY DUNGEON (weebly.com) we have the following: Form Criticism tries to go back further than identifying sources. It assumes that the Gospels are made up of “units” of text (for example, Parables or miracle stories) and that these ‘units’ were passed down as part of an oral (word-of-mouth) tradition before they were written down in the Gospels. Form Critics try to identify these ‘units’ within the text, compare them to each other and work out what they originally meant before they ended up in the Gospel. These ‘units’ are called PERICOPAE by Form Critics.
The founder of Form Criticism was Hermann Gunkel (1918) who used a key phrase to explain how it works: “SITZ IM LEBEN”, which means “setting in life”. This refers to the social context that a ‘unit’ of text was created in and what it meant to the Christian group that first used it.
Form Critics argue that before the Gospels were written down, there was an ‘oral period’ where stories about Jesus and sayings (logia) attributed to him were passed around by believers. Martin Dibelius (1919) suggests there are at least five FORMS of text in the Gospels:
Paradigms (brief stories presenting Jesus as a role model which may be based on Jesus’ ipsissima verba or “true words”)
Tales (longer miracle stories that are meant to entertain)
Myths (stories which explore a truth but which aren’t historical)
Legends (stories which seem to be historical but which present the hero as stereotypically heroic)
Exhortations (wise sayings and teachings)
Form Critics argue that the Gospel-writers pulled together these pericopae into an overall story, but often didn’t understand the Sitz im Leben of the group that had originally told them. This means that some stories get misinterpreted. Rudolph Bultmann is a famous Form Critic of the 20th century who argues that stories about Jesus were almost entirely misunderstood by the Gospel-writers and need to be DE-MYTHOLOGIZED (stripped of their supernatural details) to get back to their original meaning.
In a nutshell: The Gospels are made up of lots of different units of text all strung together: miracle stories and Parables and wise sayings and memorable stories. These units were all separate pericopae back in the oral period before the Gospels were written down, then they got ‘fixed in place’ in the finished Gospel. Form Criticism tries to unpick these pericopae and reconstruct what they originally meant.

Response: For a comprehensive response see Form Criticism | Worldview of Jesus Here are some excerpts from its objections to Form Criticism:
Philosophic and Scientific Presuppositions
The claim that form critics have used philosophic or scientific presuppositions when assessing data is not uncommon. In fact, it is likely the strongest argument against form criticism. I’ll begin with a quote from Donald Guthrie concerning how Rudolf Bultmann’s presuppositions negatively impacted his historical work:
“Bultmann’s disillusionment led him to seek an approach to the Gospels which would emancipate him from the need for historical demonstration. Only so could the simplest, in his opinion, ever come to faith. He was further prompted to his non-historical approach by his commitment to existential philosophy”8
It is believed that form criticism is the product of historical skepticism derived from source criticism, which was ultimately laid out by the philosophical foundation of the Enlightenment.2 It has been deemed that much of the findings of form criticism are found while maintaining philosophical presuppositions. Eta Linnemann remarks on the difficulty of having “prejudgments” made prior to performing form criticism:
“A more intensive investigation would show that underlying the historical-critical approach is a series of prejudgments which are not themselves the result of scientific investigation. They are rather dogmatic premises, statements of faith, whose foundation is the absolutizing of human reason as a controlling apparatus”[9]
From a historian’s point of view, it would be unwise to enter into an investigation of history with presuppositions that would alter the findings in a search for truth.
Form criticism is also rooted with the assumption that evolution is the process of progression from the simple to the complex.2Kebler describes Bultmann’s form-critical analysis in the following:
“It [Bultmann’s concept of the development of the synoptic tradition] was a process as natural as that of biological evolution: simplicity grew into complexity…, an effortless evolutionary transition from the pre-gospel stream of tradition to the written gospel”[10]
The form critics, similar to evolutionary biologists, posit the concept of gradual change over time. In this case, they felt that the synoptic texts were compiled by the early church and were not the testimony of eyewitness accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. The form critics assume that the early church did this to suit their own purposes and not for historically accounting for the life of Jesus Christ.2
During the period of time that oral tradition preserved the information contained in the Synoptic Gospels, which is roughly 30-40 years, the form critics would be merely speculating as to how this information was somehow transformed into a legendary or mythological tale. It is noted by Guthrie that, “The very fact that our historical data for the first thirty years of Christian history are so limited means that form critics inevitably had to draw a good deal of imagination, although none of them were conscious of doing so”.8
Subjective Theorizing
I.J. Peritz discusses the subjectivity of conducting form criticism:
Form criticism thus brings face to face with the obligation either to acquiesce in its faculty method and conclusions or to combat them. What is involved, however, is not the alternative between an uncritical attitude and criticism, but between criticism and hyper-criticalism. A critical view of the Gospels does not claim strict objectivity. It is hard to tell sometimes where poetry ends and history begins. It is highly probable that there is no underlying strictly chronological or topographical scheme; and that they are not biography in “our sense.” But this is far from admitting that we have no reliable testimony from eyewitnesses: that the Church from its Christ of faith created the Jesus of history, instead of from the Jesus of history its Christ of faith”[11]
When we view this observation, we can see that the form critics aren’t being entirely forthcoming in their presentation of their subjective interpretation. Form critics attempt to turn the story on its head by saying that the Christ of faith came after the Jesus of history. It seems as though the form critics are a little too “hypercritical” of the historical evidence we do have and hence make the whole process of withdrawing information from the Synoptic Gospels impotent. Robert Mounce makes a valid assessment on the subjectivity on form criticism by analyzing the inconsistencies found across the board in the field of form criticism:
“Form Criticism sounds like a scientific method. If it were, you would find consistency of interpretation. But the interpretations of a single saying vary widely. Not only are interpretations widespread but form critics often can’t agree whether a pericopae is a miracle story or a pronouncement story – the two can be woven together. One would expect consistency in historical reconstruction if Form Criticism were a true science”[12]
While many form critics parade form criticism around like a sophisticated method of retrieving historical knowledge, by pealing back the layers of subjective analysis and speculative guesses we can confidently conclude that form criticism is largely unscientific. While they all undeniable agree that Jesus’s disciples were too ignorant and uneducated to effectively document the life of Jesus, we can all identify their method of criticism is founded on their imaginative analysis filtered through numerous presuppositions of historically subjective information.2
Preconceived Agenda when Interpreting
Based on the above philosophical and scientific presuppositions of the form critics when entering into their historical analysis of the Synoptic Gospels, we can say with confidence that they are likely interpreting the collected data with a preconceived agenda.2 Form criticism is distinct from many other methods of historical analysis in that it can be largely considered to promote subjectivity in its findings. By comparison, grammatico-historical methods of interpretation are much more objective in its findings as they accept the findings of the Bible without prejudice. The reason for this distinction is that form criticism is largely based on the presuppositions of the form critic. In addition, the large amount of information that is still unknown about the oral period gives the form critic the freedom to wildly speculate.2
This is evidently clear when it comes to the acceptance of miracles. We see that Dibelius and Bultmann weren’t open to the possibility of miracles within the Synoptic Gospels. From the beginning, we see that they are entering into the analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with the presupposition that the literature is false. Guthrie notes that, “Both Dibelius and Bultmann reject the miraculous and therefore the historicity of the gospel accounts of miracles. This is not so much the basis of ‘form’ as on philosophical and theological grounds”.8 Their philosophical and theological presuppositions weren’t allowing their mind to be open to where the evidence took them so they had to find another way to make sense of the evidence.
Bultmann wanted to “demythogize” the New Testament in order to make it relatable to modern people.[13] However, there appears to be a strong antisupernatural bias by taking this position. It limits what you are allowed to accept as historically true. Given that Bultmann used this presupposition when practicing form criticism, he immediately chalked up Jesus’ baptism, temptation, transfiguration, miracles, and resurrection as legendary.2Bultmann described these narratives as “instead of being historical in character are religious and edifying”.
Both Dibelius and Bultmann held that these miracles accounts are unhistorical and can be classified as myths. However, are there grounds for making that type of claim solely by using form criticism? Given the nature of form criticism, it would be impossible to make an objectively historical case for mythological Hellenistic concepts to have influenced the Synoptic Gospels without relying upon presuppositions already predetermined to those findings. Unless they were already convinced that the Synoptic Gospels were influenced by Hellenistic concepts, form criticism wouldn’t have been the vehicle to lead them to that conclusion.
Ironically, Bultmann himself doesn’t find the miracles in the Synoptic Gospels to be comparable to the ones found in Hellenistic traditions, “In general, however, the New Testament miracle stories are extremely reserved in this respect [in describing cures], since they hesitate to attribute to the person of Jesus the magical traits which were often characteristic of the Hellenistic miracle worker”.[15] Given that Bultmann concedes that the Hellenistic mythological miracle workers were largely different from the miracle working found by Jesus, what would inspire such a loyalty to the theory that Jesus had been plagiarized by Hellenistic sources? It appears that their loyalty to theories that easily explain away large amounts of genuine information with little evidence requires the person doing the dismissing to have a strong bias in the opposite direction if he is going to knowingly dismiss information without good objective reason.
Conclusion
On the surface, form criticism may appear to be a genuine practice of Biblical evaluation with the intention of gathering deeper insight into the Biblical text. I would caution you from placing stock into the findings of form criticism. Form criticism is not oriented towards objectively seeking truth from the Biblical text. Form critics enter the practice of performing their form criticism with philosophical and scientific presuppositions. Their conclusions cannot be genuinely historical because they will inevitably reflect their bias presuppositions of the Biblical text.2
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that objectivity is possible when analyzing the Synoptic Gospels. The grammatico-historical method has done so by safeguarding hermeneutics by highlighting the need for objectivity.2 It is done in other methods of historical study but it doesn’t seem to be relied upon in form criticism. Positing conspiracy theories of the early church formulation of these stories and/or how the Jesus story evolved from Hellenistic sources fall tremendously short when evidence is weighed and viewed objectively without negative presuppositions.

6. Redaction Criticism: This type of biblical criticism attempts to determine how the biblical author’s theology, biases, priorities, and viewpoints influenced what he penned from his source materials to reach the final form of the scripture he wrote. It has been primarily applied to the Gospels, but has been extended to other parts of scripture as well. Redaction criticism can help understand scripture, but lends itself to unwarranted speculations and biases of the one doing the criticism. Thus, nonbelievers in their denial that scripture is inspired by God, try to use it to discredit the reliability of scripture. However, traditional conservative scholars have used it to help us understand the different perspectives and goals of the Gospel writers. For example, it is generally accepted among these scholars that Matthew was written to show the Jews that Jesus was their Messiah, Luke wanted to show the world the story of Jesus, and John focused on proving to the world Jesus was divine and was the Lamb of God who paid for the sins of all mankind. Redaction criticism can be helpful but can be abused by assuming or inferring more than we should and becomes simply unwarranted speculation.
Here are several good articles on Redaction criticism:
What is Redaction Criticism? An arbitrary criticism of the Bible | carm.org
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/nt-interpretation/nti_11.
Redaction Criticism – PHILOSOPHY DUNGEON (weebly.com)
What is Redaction Criticism? – Reading Acts
WHY FORM, SOURCE, AND REDACTION CRITICISMS ARE DANGEROUS TO STUDYING JESUS | Ologos Weblog (wordpress.com)
Biblical criticisms: Examples cited at What is Redaction Criticism? An arbitrary criticism of the Bible | carm.org
“Redaction Criticism began in Germany in the early 1700s with Hermann Reimarus, who was a professor of Oriental languages in Hamburg. He was a deist who wrote extensively against Christianity. He proposed that Jesus was a failure and that the disciples altered their stories in an attempt to make Jesus appear messianic and miraculous.”
“Redaction criticism was then taken up by David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74) who attempted to show that the gospels were altered, was the expression of myth, and cannot be construed as historical. His main contribution to redaction criticism was the idea that Mark was used as a source document by Matthew and Luke.”
“Wilhelm Wrede (1859-1906) was the next major proponent of redaction criticism who attempted to show that the historical narratives of Mark were not reliable.”
Claims cited from WHY FORM, SOURCE, AND REDACTION CRITICISMS ARE DANGEROUS TO STUDYING JESUS | Ologos Weblog (wordpress.com)
“And what are these dangerous presumptions of these radical scholars? As previously explained, they are that the New Testament Gospels are not literary products from the eyewitnesses and immediate disciples of Jesus. Instead, they are late compilations from multiple anonymous and fragmented sources that are more or less loosely based upon events involving an itinerant rabbi that the modern world refers to as Jesus. Moreover, as these redactors (i.e., the authors of the canonical Gospels) composed their respective Gospels they imposed upon their sources the urgent felt needs of their Christian communities. The Gospels are not, therefore, the accurate records of eyewitness accounts provided by Jesus’ immediate followers of what he actually taught and accomplished, but in general they are the “opinions” of regionally organized Christian communities concerning what Jesus might have said about what was really important to them during the time that the Gospels were being composed into their final form, which was almost a century later.”
“This model of literary development—which combines the disciplines of radical Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism—argues that the canonical Gospels are the products of oral and literary evolution. Consequently, they suffered from serial redactions over a prolonged period of time in order to meet the ever changing and subjective felt needs of later Christian communities that were far removed from the original events that the Gospels actually document. To liberal and/or skeptical scholars, therefore, these compositions cannot be trusted to provide any accurate historical evidence concerning the life of Jesus. Instead, they merely reflect the “opinions” and theology of the organized church during the time in which they were composed. Then finally, they argue, sometime in the late 4th and early 5th century the institutionalized church “christened” them with the status of “canonical.””

Response to these claims: Redaction criticism can be a useful tool but is susceptible to the biases of the one using the tool. The claims cited above are from those who don’t believe in miracles and don’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. The claims are examples of nonbelievers abusing the tool by making presumptions, assumptions, and conjecture rather than producing evidence to support their theology and conclusions. Appropriate use of redaction criticism, where it can be backed up by evidence, not speculation, is helpful in understanding scripture.

7. Biblical criticism evaluates the question: Is the Jesus of Faith different from the historic real Jesus?
This has become a question because liberal scholars claim they are not the same. One could only think they were different if he had a low view of the Gospels, i.e. he viewed them as not authentic but theological embellishments to the true Jesus, A very good paper to show what the claimed differences are is Jesus Many Faces – The Historical Jesus | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS. Following is a list of the claimed differences taken from this paper:
“…certain issues dominate the emerging picture of the historical Jesus:
• Jesus preached the kingdom of God, not himself. In some way God would act in history (or was now acting) to effect a change in society as they knew it. Whether this would be at some future time (Sanders) or already present in his ministry (Borg, Crossan, Mack) or as a dynamic drama in its first stage, so both present and future (Meier) Jesus preached God’s power to effect a reversal of values and the emergence of a just society. This kingdom is about God, not Jesus himself, and is on earth. It addresses two main concerns of peasants: bread and death. “They have too much of the second and too little of the first,” quips Crossan.
• Jesus is a Jew, and the early kingdom movement’-the expectation of God’s earthly rule and Israel’s liberation from foreign oppression-is not the founding of a religion called Christianity but a thoroughly Jewish phenomenon. Unfortunately, we know relatively little of the Judaism of the first century, and much of what we do know derives from the New Testament.
• The historical Jesus and the Jesus of the early church bear little resemblance to one another. Even more tenuous is the connection between the historical Jesus and later Christianity. Contemporary Jesus scholars seem to agree one can be a good Christian without knowing a bit about this Jesus of history. The flesh-and-blood Jesus in the late ’20s of the first century gave way to the reconstructed and interpreted Jesus of the gospels in the 70s and ’80s and was superseded by the “Christ of faith” of the later church. When believers speak of their faith in Jesus, it is this last figure to which they refer.
• The emphasis on Jesus’ divinity has often eclipsed his humanity. Many church controversies focused on creedal issues, such as Jesus’ relation to the Father. From the nineteenth century on, much scholarly debate has swirled around such supernatural elements of the Jesus story as the virgin birth and the resurrection. Sanders notes the recent surge of interest in “Mary’s hymen and Jesus’ corpse. “Yet the human Jesus leaves hints of having been very human indeed: a colorful sort, more given to feasting than fasting and hanging around with disreputable types of which his family probably disapproved.
• John the Baptist exerted tremendous influence over Jesus and his message. While contemporary scholars would acknowledge that the relation with the Baptist is one of the most likely authentic pieces of the gospel traditions (since the evangelists seem a trifle embarrassed by it, they probably didn’t invent it), Meier develops the idea that Jesus was probably part of the Baptist’s early circle and his fiery apocalyptic theology was a constant in Jesus’ own ministry. When Jesus left the circle of the Baptist to start his own ministry, he seems to have taken some of the Baptist’s followers with him.
• Jesus’ view of himself differed widely from the early church’s. Whether he saw himself as the Messiah is debatable, but he almost certainly did not see himself as divine. As Bork puts it, “If one of Jesus’ disciples had spoken of him with the words of the Nicene Creed, one can only imagine him saying, ‘What?’ Sanders poignantly remarks that Jesus may have died a disappointed man. The earliest gospel reports his final cry from the cross to be one of utter despair: “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” Whether historical or not, we cannot be sure, but it points to the element of tragedy in his death.
• His followers, and even a non-believer like the Jewish historian Josephus, recall Jesus as a healer, exorcist, and miracle worker. Interestingly, his detractors neither call him a fraud, nor say the miracles were faked, but attribute his powers to Satan or demons.
• Except for a few of the women, the bulk of Jesus’ followers abandoned him at the time of his death. Nor did his family seem to support him during his ministry. At one point (Mark 3:20-2 1), they think he is possessed.
• Remarkably, Jesus’ death did not mark the end of his movement. His followers continued to believe in his message of God’s Kingdom. “The juice was not turned off,” remarks Crossan.”

Response: An excellent response to this is given by William Lane Craig here Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus | Scholarly Writings | Reasonable Faith.
Here is a summary of Craig’s key points: “Skeptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I’m not exaggerating here: this really is the procedure of skeptical critics. But I want to list five reasons why I think we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:”
1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.
2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.” Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the “vanishing hitchhiker” rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.
3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.
4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.
5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.

Craig gives this additional detail on reasons 1 and 5:
“1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. No modern scholar thinks of the gospels as bald-faced lies, the result of a massive conspiracy. The only place you find such conspiracy theories of history is in sensationalist, popular literature or former propaganda from behind the Iron Curtain. When you read the pages of the New Testament, there’s no doubt that these people sincerely believed in the truth of what they proclaimed. Rather ever since the time of D. F. Strauss, skeptical scholars have explained away the gospels as legends. Like the child’s game of telephone, as the stories about Jesus were passed on over the decades, they got muddled and exaggerated and mythologized until the original facts were all but lost. The Jewish peasant sage was transformed into the divine Son of God.”
“One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis, however, which is almost never addressed by skeptical critics, is that the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is just too short for this to happen. This point has been well-explained by A. N. Sherwin-White in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. [2] Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is a professional historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. According to Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers. According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be “unbelievable.” More generations would be needed.”
“In fact, adding a time gap of two generations to Jesus’s death lands you in the second century, just when the apocryphal gospels begin to appear. These do contain all sorts of fabulous stories about Jesus, trying to fill in the years between his boyhood and his starting his ministry, for example. These are the obvious legends sought by the critics, not the biblical gospels.”
“This point becomes even more devastating for skepticism when we recall that the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesus’s life. For example, the story of Jesus’s suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story, was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death. [3]
Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends in such cases.”
“5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability. Again, I only have time to look at one example: Luke. Luke was the author of a two-part work: the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. These are really one work and are separated in our Bibles only because the church grouped the gospels together in the New Testament. Luke is the gospel writer who writes most self-consciously as an historian. In the preface to this work, he writes:”
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (Lk. 1.1-4)”
“This preface is written in classical Greek terminology such as was used by Greek historians; after this Luke switches to a more common Greek. But he has put his reader on alert that he can write, should he wish to, like the learned historian. He speaks of his lengthy investigation of the story he’s about to tell and assures us that it is based on eyewitness information and is accordingly the truth.”
“Now who was this author we call Luke? He was clearly not an eyewitness to Jesus’s life. But we discover an important fact about him from the book of Acts. Beginning in the sixteenth chapter of Acts, when Paul reaches Troas in modern-day Turkey, the author suddenly starts using the first-person plural: “we set sail from Troas to Samothrace,” “we remained in Philippi some days,” “as we were going to the place of prayer,” etc. The most obvious explanation is that the author had joined Paul on his evangelistic tour of the Mediterranean cities. In chapter 21 he accompanies Paul back to Palestine and finally to Jerusalem. What this means is that the author of Luke-Acts was in fact in first hand contact with the eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and ministry in Jerusalem. Skeptical critics have done back-flips to try to avoid this conclusion. They say that the use of the first-person plural in Acts should not be taken literally; it’s just a literary device which is common in ancient sea voyage stories. Never mind that many of the passages in Acts are not about Paul’s sea voyage, but take place on land! The more important point is that this theory, when you check it out, turns out to be sheer fantasy. [4] There just was no literary device of sea voyages in the first-person plural—the whole thing has been shown to be a scholarly fiction! There is no avoiding the conclusion that Luke-Acts was written by a traveling companion of Paul who had the opportunity to interview eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life while in Jerusalem. Who were some of these eyewitnesses? Perhaps we can get some clue by subtracting from the Gospel of Luke everything found in the other gospels and seeing what is peculiar to Luke. What you discover is that many of Luke’s peculiar narratives are connected to women who followed Jesus: people like Joanna and Susanna, and significantly, Mary, Jesus’s mother.”
“Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. [5] Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right. According to Professor Sherwin-White, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.” [6] The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” [7] Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.
On the basis of the five reasons I listed, we are justified in accepting the historical reliability of what the gospels say about Jesus unless they are proven to be wrong. At the very least, we cannot assume they are wrong until proven right. The person who denies the gospels’ reliability must bear the burden of proof.”
Additional response: As a four-decades old Christian layman, I agree with Craig’s assessment of the reliability of the New Testament. Two of the Gospels were written by two of the twelve apostles – Matthew and John. They themselves were eyewitnesses to the three years of Jesus’ ministry. The other two writers, Mark and Luke, had access to key eye-witnesses including the eleven apostles, Mary the mother of Jesus, Jesus’ brothers and sisters, and named witnesses such as Mary Magdalene, Martha, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Zacchaeus to name a few as well as the large number of un-named witnesses still alive in Capernaum, Nazareth, Cana, Bethany, Jerusalem, Jericho, and others towns.
Moreover, Paul not only met Jesus on the Damascus road, before he began his missionary journeys he spent time in Jerusalem with the apostles, Jesus’ brother James, and no doubt sought out Mary to hear all she had to say about Jesus.
Anyone knowledgeable of the Gospels can refute all eight assertions above from the article Jesus Many Faces – The Historical Jesus | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS. These eight assertions are the result of nonbelievers abusing all the types of biblical criticism to discredit scripture. All are opinions based on conjecture, not fact.

B. The Bible contradicts itself
1. The article by Paul F. Taylor at the link Isn’t the Bible Full of Contradictions? | Answers in Genesis is a good starting point in response to this accusation. It covers the various categories of discrepancies such as presuppositional discrepancies, incorrect context, translation errors, use of language, and copyist errors. It shows examples of each and explains the misunderstandings. It also refers us to a comprehensive treatment of the subject – a book entitled, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988). The 446-page book was originally published in 1874. Taylor says the allegations of inconsistency have been occurring for centuries and have all been explained. Haley first covers the origins of discrepancies and identifies ten categorizes: Difference of Date of Passages, Differences of Authorship, Differences of Standpoint or of Object, Different Methods of Arrangement, Different Methods of Computation, Peculiarities of Oriental Idiom, Plurality of Names or Synonyms, Diverse Meanings of Words, Errors in Manuscripts, and Imagination of Critic.

Next Haley has a section called Design of the Discrepancies, which is a list of actual benefits derived from them. For example, they show there was no collusion among the Gospel writers to make then identical. Haley next considers the Results of Discrepancies, which include (1) the Text of the Bible is Not Unsettled, and (2) the Moral Influence of the Bible is Not Impaired. The rest of his book covers allegations in three categories: doctrinal, ethical, and historical.

With these huge shoulders to stand on, we will proceed to address the contradiction claims.
What are the specific contradictions cited by americanhumanist.org and what is the Christian apologist responses to them?

Claimed contradictions from the Old Testament:
1. Genesis chapter 1 says the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 gives a different order of creation: man, then the animals, and then woman.
Response: God made animals then man in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 says that he made then, which He had. Now He brings them to Adam to name. Some translations (Tindale) use “had made” in Genesis 2 to make it clear. It was a simple re=statement of what God had done, not a contradiction
2. Genesis 1 lists 6 days of creation, while chapter 2 refers to “the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens.”
Response: In chapter 2 day means the time in history, not one day – like we would say “back in the day.”
3. Genesis 1:2-3 says that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day, but Genesis 1:14-19 says that the sun, moon, and stars weren’t made until the fourth day.
Response: At the initial instant of creation God injected into a dark nothing a huge amount of energy – light (a big bang) and later from that energy He created the stars including the sun and its solar system in which earth resides. There is no contradiction here.
4. . Chapter 1 indicates God created fruit trees before man, while chapter 2 indicates they were made after him.
Response: In chapter 1 God created plants and animals on earth in general and the created Adam. In chapter 2 God specifically prepared the garden of Eden (including plants) and then placed Adam there. It is not a contradiction.
5. . Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters while Genesis 2:19 says they were formed from the ground.
Response: Genesis 1:20, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth.” Genesis 2:19, “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky.” The claim clearly misreads Genesis 1:20. It states two separate things – creation of things that live in water and creation of things that fly in the sky. The second “let” phrase does not imply flying creatures came from the water. There is no contradiction.
6. Contradictions are also seen in the biblical story of a worldwide flood. According to Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Nevertheless, Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos
Response: In Genesis 7 God is simply adding specifics and expounding on Genesis 8.
7. Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah’s ark rested on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. The very next verse, however, says the mountaintops could not be seen until the tenth month
Response: Easy answer. When the ark rested on the mountains, the mountain top on which it rested would still have been under water and not visible. As the water continued to recede, the surrounding mountain tops began to show. It does imply that the mountain on which the ark settled was among, but not necessarily, the tallest in view.
8. Genesis 8:13 describes the earth as being dry on the first day of the first month. But Genesis 8:14 informs us the earth was not dry until the twenty-seventh day of the second month.
Response: Verse 13 describes when Noah first saw dry ground; verse 14 describes the day when Noah leaves the ark, scripture noting that the earth surface was still dry. Why wait another 27 days? Perhaps to let the surface firm up a bit more. Any way, it was God’s call when to leave the ark, “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, “Go out of the ark…””
9. The Old Testament contains an interesting contradiction in the story of the census taken by King David and the resulting punishment of the Israelites. God was so angered by the census that he sent a plague that killed 70,000 men. According to II Samuel 24:1, the Lord had caused David to take the census – which makes the punishment appear even more nonsensical. But an attempt was later made, at I Chronicles 21:1, to improve God’s image by claiming that Satan incited the census
Response: II Samuel 24:1 begins by saying God was angry with David. It does not say why, but obviously David had just done something that displeased God. What should David have done? He should have sought the face of God and confessed his sin, but instead he took a census for the purpose of sizing his army. Yes, Satan seized the opportunity of God’s anger with David to tempt him to sin more. God did not instruct David to take the census. There is no contradiction.
10. Further, the Old Testament is contradictory as to whether the Lord commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals to him. At Jeremiah 7:22, God denies he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices. In contrast, Exodus 29:38-42 and many other verses depict God as requiring the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices.
Response: The thrust of Jeremiah and elsewhere in scripture is that God desires obedience more than sacrifice. Though God specified religious ceremonial laws including animal sacrifice, His command to Israel as they were about to enter the promised land was to obey Him, and what happened was that after they entered the promised land, they eventually disobeyed God – even starting to worship false Gods. In Jeremiah, God is stating a high priority of obeying clear commands more than ceremonial things. They had disobeyed the first two of the Ten Commandments.

Claimed contradictions from the New Testament:
1. In the New Testament, there are contradictions between the genealogies of Jesus given in the first chapter of Matthew and the third chapter of Luke. Both genealogies begin with Jesus’ father, who is identified as Joseph (which is curious, given that Mary was supposedly impregnated by the Holy Ghost). But Matthew says Joseph’s father was Jacob, while Luke claims he was Heli. Matthew lists 26 generations between Jesus and King David, whereas Luke records 41. Matthew runs Jesus’ line of descent through David’s son Solomon, while Luke has it going through David’s son Nathan.
Response: Levirate marriage tradition among the Hebrews can explain these apparent discrepancies. It says that if a wife’s husband dies, a brother of the husband should take the widow as his wife, take care of her, and conceive with her children as legal heirs for his brother. In the case of Joseph’s father, Joseph’s biological father was Jacob and his legal father (because of levirate marriage) was Eli. In the case of which of David’s sons was in Jesus’ genealogy, Solomon could have married Nathan’s widow per Levirate custom, so Mattatha is the biological son of Solomon but the legal son of Nathan.
.
2 The story of Jesus’ birth is also contradictory. Matthew 2:13-15 depicts Joseph and Mary as fleeing to Egypt with the baby Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought gifts. But Luke 2:22-40 claims that after the birth of Jesus, his parents remained in Bethlehem for the time of Mary’s purification (which was 40 days, under the Mosaic law). Afterwards, they brought Jesus to Jerusalem “to present him to the Lord,” and then returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke mentions no journey into Egypt or visit by wise men from the east.

Response: This claim shows ignorance of scripture. The wise men showed up quite some time after Jesus’ birth – when he was about two years old. Given the wise men found Jesus in Bethlehem, Joseph and Mary must have moved there from Nazareth. After the wise men’s visit, they had to flee to Egypt until Herod died, then returned to Nazaeth where Jesus grew up. Note, the wise men found “the child”, not the baby, and he was in a house, not a stable. There was no threat to Jesus immediately after his birth, that happened when the wise men showed up later and inquired of King Herod where the king of the Jews was recently born.

3. Concerning the death of Judas, the disloyal disciple, Matthew 27:5 states he took the money he had received for betraying Jesus, threw it down in the temple, and “went and hanged himself.” To the contrary, Acts 1:18 claims Judas used the money to purchase a field and “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”
Response: Both can be true. Judas’ dead body from hanging stayed hanging there decaying until his body swelled up and burst. This could have happened because the disciples abhorred him as a traitor or his body wasn’t found until it decayed and burst.

4. In describing Jesus being led to his execution, John 19:17 recounts that he carried his own cross. But Mark 15:21-23 disagrees by saying a man called Simon carried the cross.
Response: Both carried the cross. Jeus carried it until He couldn’t, then Simon took over.

5. As for the crucifixion, Matthew 27:44 tells us Jesus was taunted by both criminals who were being crucified with him. But Luke 23:39-43 relates that only one of the criminals taunted Jesus, the other criminal rebuked the one who was doing the taunting, and Jesus told the criminal who was defending him, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

Response: Both likely taunted Jesus at first. Then, after witnessing the events at the scene (the darkness, the earthquake, Jesus’ words and attitude), the one thief realized Jesus must truly be the Messiah, changed his mind, and believed.

6. Regarding the last words of Jesus while on the cross, Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 quote Jesus as crying with a loud voice, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Luke 23:46 gives his final words as, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” John 19:30 alleges the last words were, “It is finished.”
Response: All of these were uttered by Jesus on the cross. Different witnesses remembered different parts.

7. There are even contradictions in the accounts of the resurrection – the supposed event that is the very foundation of the Christian religion. Mark 16:2 states that on the day of the resurrection, certain women arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun. But John 20:1 informs us they arrived when it was yet dark. Luke 24:2 describes the tomb as open when the women arrived, whereas Matthew 28:1-2 indicates it was closed. Mark 16:5 declares that the women saw a young man at the tomb, Luke 24:4 says they saw two men, Matthew 28:2 reports they saw an angel, and John 20:11-12 claims they saw two angels.

Response: Dawn bridges night and day, so no contradiction. Matthew 28:1-2 does not say the tomb was closed when the women arrived. It says an earthquake had occurred and an angel had come and rolled the atone away – so it was open.

8. Also in the resurrection stories, there are contradictions as to the identity of the women who came to the tomb,[7] whether the men or angels the women saw were inside or outside the tomb,[8] whether the men or angels were standing or sitting,[9] and whether Mary Magdalene recognized the risen Jesus when he first appeared to her.[10]

Response: When describing who rolled away the stone, the Gospel authors (Matthew and Mark) reported only one angel. When describing who helped Jesus from the tomb, the Gospel authors (Luke and John) reported two angels. So, one rolled the stone away and two helped Jesus from the tomb. There is no contradiction.

9. As a final example of a New Testament contradiction, the conflicting accounts of Paul’s conversion can be cited. Acts 9:7 states that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. According to Acts 22:9, however, the men saw a light but didn’t hear the voice speaking to Paul.

Response: Acts 9:7, “ The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the [c]voice but seeing no one.” Acts 19: 9 , “ And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not [f]understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.” Explanation: Both scriptures indicate the men heard a voice which they did not understand. In Acts 9, the men did not see the one speaking to Saul and in Acts 19 the men saw the light. These are not contradictory. They saw a light but did not see who was speaking to Saul.

C. The Bible Contradicts the Laws of Nature
Many of the Bible’s claims are inconsistent with the laws of nature. Humanists believe that those claims are both wrong and harmful.
Science and the Laws of Nature
As a result of human observation and experience, a fundamental principle of science is that the laws of nature do not change, cannot be violated, and have acted uniformly over time. According to paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, this uniformity or constancy of natural laws is the “methodological assumption” making science practicable.[15] Indeed, without the assumption that the physical world operates according to unchanging natural laws, there would be no use studying the world, conducting experiments, or otherwise learning from experience.
Response: We agree to this point. We would add that God designed the physical world and its laws.
Claim: In a world not operating under unvarying natural laws, those acts would be useless because knowledge of past events would not provide guidance about what will happen in similar situations in the future. There would always be the possibility of supernatural forces intervening to alter outcomes from what would otherwise be expected to occur based on past experience.
Response: For man, it is indeed important to learn and use the natural laws to improve our quality of life. However, it is presumptuous, even silly, to think that the God who designed and created this world could not supersede the laws if He had a reason to and ensure it did not upset the apple cart so to speak.
Claim: Overwhelming evidence shows that physical events occur according to immutable natural laws. And an increasing knowledge of those laws enhances humankind’s ability to predict future events and control human destiny.
Response: Overwhelming evidence? No, the scientific method excludes by definition evidence that supports a supernatural explanation. Since this method has been adopted, any evidence of miracles has been denied and suppressed. Science won’t allow it. Immutable laws are a presumption. God is immutable. Given He created the scientific laws, He could change or supersede them. Hence, they could not be immutable.
D. The Bible teaches miracles and supernatural events, which are scientifically impossible
Claim: By claiming that supernatural beings intervene in the world, the Bible opposes the scientific principle of natural laws operating uniformly and unvaryingly. As a result, the Bible discourages a scientific approach to problems.
Response: On the contrary, much if not most of the word’s scientific advancement has been accomplished by men of faith. God encourages us to love Him with all our minds, and in our charge to be good stewards of the earth and to help mankind, it makes sense to study and make use of the natural laws to do those things. From Bible Problems? – Does the Bible Teach Things That Violate the Laws of Nature? (sciencepastor.com) we have this quote: “It was the Christian worldview, with our understanding that God is knowable and maintains order, which allowed science to first blossom and then explode. Prior to the rise of Christianity in Europe, the “gods” were thought to be capricious, fickle, and unpredictable. There was no reason to learn about the world because the “gods” could arbitrarily upset things at any time. The rise of Christianity created a stable foundation of truth on which science could build.”
Claim: “The Bible has stories about a talking snake (Genesis 3:4-5); a tree bearing fruit which, when eaten, gives knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17; 3:5-7); another tree whose fruit bestows immortality (Genesis 3:22); a voice coming from a burning bush (Exodus 3:4); a talking donkey (Numbers 22:28); rods turning into serpents (Exodus 7:10-12); water changing into blood (Exodus 7:19-22); water coming from a rock (Numbers 20:11); a dead man reviving when his corpse touched the bones of a prophet (II Kings 13:21); and other people rising from the dead (e.g., I Kings 17:21-22; II Kings 4:32-35; Acts 9:37-40).
There are also accounts of the sun standing still (Joshua 10:13); the parting of a sea (Exodus 14:21-22); iron floating (II Kings 6:5-6); the sun’s shadow going back ten degrees (II Kings 20:9-11); a witch bringing the ghost of Samuel back from the dead (I Samuel 28:3-15); disembodied fingers writing on a wall (Daniel 5:5); a man living for three days and nights in the belly of a fish (Jonah 1:17); people walking on water (Matthew 14:26-29); a virgin impregnated by God (Matthew 1:20); a pool of water that can cure ailments of those who dip in it (John 5:2-4); and angels and demons influencing earthly affairs (e.g., Acts 5:19; Luke 11:24-26).
These biblical myths support the belief, which has been held by primitive and illiterate people throughout history, that supernatural beings frequently and arbitrarily intervene in this world.
When examined in the light of experience and reason, the Bible’s claims about supernatural occurrences do not warrant belief. Our experience is that the natural world operates according to principles of regularity – which are never violated. We also know from experience that many people are often mistaken or dishonest. Thus, it’s far more likely the Bible writers either erred or lied than the laws of nature were violated.”
Response: From Bible Problems? – Does the Bible Teach Things That Violate the Laws of Nature? (sciencepastor.com) we have this response:
“Our Supernatural God”
“Yes, God has intervened supernaturally in the past. However, those occasions have been rare. There have been just five major periods of time when God has supernaturally intervened in the world in ways that violate what is normal (violate the “laws of nature”). During those unique times His intervention was necessary.”
“Two unique periods of supernatural intervention were during the creation week and during the time of Noah’s flood. The other three were when God worked by performing miracles through people during the days of Moses and Joshua, the time of Elijah and Elisha, and the time of Christ and the apostles.”
“Why was it important for God to act through people supernaturally during the time of Jesus’ ministry? Because He was demonstrating that, He (Jesus) is God. Jesus did things only God can do. Through His supernatural miracles, Jesus demonstrated His deity and the truth of what He was saying that to be saved, you must believe in Him. The most common purpose of supernatural miracles was to authenticate the messenger or the message.”
“There are also two periods of supernatural intervention that are coming in the future. one during the seven-year tribulation and the return of Jesus; and the other at the end times when evil and the physical universe is destroyed and everything created new.”
“What about today? Could God act supernaturally today? Yes, He could, and does. However, not by giving people the ability to bring about supernatural miracles. In most cases miracles today are providential miracles in which God uses people and events to accomplish His purposes.
“Atheists often tell me, “If God would only give me a sign… write ‘Dear Fred, I Am God’ in the sky. Then I’d believe.” Do they realize what they are asking? They are asking God to demonstrate He is real by doing a supernatural miracle for every person on the planet. That certainly would disrupt the natural order and produce a world filled with confusion. God does not do that. He is not a God of confusion.”
I (Dennis) would add that Jesus pointed out in the story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus who both died, that the rich man went to hell and in his torment asked God to send someone back from the dead to tell his brothers to trust in God so they would not end up where he was. But Jesus said his brothers had the law and the prophets yet did not believe, and they would not believe even if someone came back from the dead. Jesus is saying we already have the evidence we need to believe, and yet some will not believe.
“Instead, God has created the universe so that we can learn about Him through what He has created. That means He has created an orderly, consistent universe that we can study and understand.”
“Is There Proof the Supernatural is Real? Yes!”
“Most New Testament scholars now believe that Jesus did in fact perform healings and exorcisms. Even many liberal scholars would say that Jesus drew large crowds of people primarily because of His ability to heal and exorcise demons” – Dr. Daniel Morris and Michael Greghorn, ”What Do Modern Historians Think?”
“The strongest evidence that Jesus’ miracles are real are the Gospel accounts themselves. One of Jesus’ most incredible miracles was the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus had been dead and buried for four days. Buried long enough that his body had started to decay and stink. There was no question Lazarus was dead. Then Jesus raised him from the dead, and did so in front of a large crowd that had come to the gravesite to mourn.”
“When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped with cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
“, many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus had done.” – John 11:43-46

“The Gospel of John, with the above record of Lazarus’ resurrection, was circulated during the lifetimes of the people who were at this funeral. The Jewish leaders in particular wanted to destroy Christianity, and would have gladly accepted and publicized anything that showed Christianity to be fake or a lie. If the resurrection of Lazarus was a made-up story, that would have quickly been publicized. However, it was true. Jesus’ miracles, including this one, were public, seen by thousands. The written reports (the four Gospels) were publicly circulated during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who could have refuted what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reported… if what they wrote was not true. The miracles of Jesus are solidly grounded in historical fact.”
“READ MORE: www.creation.com/vital-mission-atheists”
“CONCLUSION: There is nothing in the Bible inconsistent with the laws of nature. God established the laws of nature, and He maintains them as unchanging. It is because of Christianity that Europeans realized the world is predictable and consistent, and that it can be studied and understood. The result was the birth of modern science.”
More responses from Science Pastor answering humanist claims against miracles:
Proving There Is No Supernatural (sciencepastor.com)
Bible Problems? – Humanist Examples Of God Acting Supernaturally (sciencepastor.com)
Humanists MUST REFUSE To Believe The Evidence of Miracles (sciencepastor.com)

E. The Bible discourages a scientific approach to problems
Claim:
Historian Abdrew White states that despite all the prayers, rituals, and other religious activities performed throughout the centuries, the frequency and severity of plagues did not diminish until scientific hygiene made its appearance. In regard to the hygienic improvements instituted during the second half of the nineteenth century, White explains: “[T]he sanitary authorities have in half a century done far more to reduce the rate of disease and death than has been done in fifteen hundred years by all the fetiches which theological reasoning could devise or ecclesiastical power enforce.” [26]
The superior results of using science instead of religion can be seen in many other fields. Humanists therefore accept the scientific view that this world operates under unvarying natural laws that cannot be suspended by religious rituals or other means.
And Humanists esteem highly those who study this world and provide a better understanding of it. Unlike the theologians who focus on influencing supposed supernatural powers, persons using a scientific outlook have enabled great progress to be made in reducing misery and increasing happiness.
Response: As we have stated above, Christianity is not against science. It embraces it as a means of better understanding God’s creation and using the increased understanding to improve the lives of all people. As mentioned above, the scientific method itself was invented by a Christian – Francis Bacon, and much of scientific discovery has come from Christians. Christians using science to improve our world and lives comes under the Christian understanding of God’s command for us to be good stewards of His creation. God encourages wisdom and understanding, not ignorance, stupidity, and confusion. That some professed Christians throughout history may have acted otherwise does not change what the Bible teaches.
More response on this from science pastor: Science Bests Supernaturalism? Is Science Superior to the Bible? (sciencepastor.com)

F. Belief in Miracles Harms the World

Claim: “Because of believing that supernatural beings control the world, people have often misdirected their energies in attempting to solve problems. Instead of studying the world to discover scientific solutions to problems, they performed religious activities in an effort to obtain the assistance of benevolent supernatural beings or thwart the influence of malicious ones.”
“This misdirection of energies is seen, for instance, in the history of the attempts to prevent the outbreak and spread of diseases in Europe. The historian Andrew White relates that, during many centuries in the Middle Ages, the filthiness of European cities repeatedly caused great plagues that sent multitudes to their graves.[16]”
“Based on biblical teachings, Christian theologians during those centuries thought the plagues were caused by the anger of God or the malevolence of Satan.[17] The Bible gave them ample support for their belief. It contains numerous instances of God punishing people by means of pestilence (e.g., Exodus 32:35; Numbers 16:44-49; Jeremiah 21:6). And in describing Jesus’ healing miracles, the New Testament attributes the following afflictions to demons: blindness (Matthew 12:22); muteness (Matthew 9:32-33); lameness (Luke 13:11,16); epilepsy (Matthew 17:14-18); and insanity (Mark 5:1-13).”
“Those teachings led the early church leaders to promote the idea that demonic activity is the primary cause of disease. For example, St. Augustine, whose views strongly influenced Western thought for over a thousand years, said in the fourth century: “All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons. . ..” [18]”
“With the coming of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, there was little change in the Christian attitude toward the causes of disease. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, repeatedly attributed his own illnesses to “devils’ spells.” He also stated: “Satan produces all the maladies which afflict mankind, for he is the prince of death.” [19]”
“As a result of believing in supernatural causes of disease, theologians taught that plagues could be averted or stopped by seeking supernatural assistance. And the way to obtain God’s help, they thought, was to perform religious acts. These included repenting from sin;[20] providing gifts to churches, monasteries, and shrines;[21] participating in religious processions;[22] attending church services (which often only increased the spread of disease);[23] and killing Jews and witches (since it was thought Satan used them as his agents in causing illness).[24] Religious leaders largely ignored the possibility of physical causes and cures of diseases.[25]”
Response: Whether we are ignorant of or know the cause through science and use that knowledge to solve our problems like diseases, either way, we Christians go to God and pray for relief. If we know for example that one has cancer, we pray that God give the doctors wisdom and skill in applying their knowledge to cure it. In the Bible, before science showed us otherwise, some diseases were thought to be the work of Satan. In other cases, God expressly used disease as a consequence for evil behavior or disobedience. In other instances, disease was seen as natural phenomena. As we have already stated, the advancement of science to understand diseases and create cures for them has in large part come from Christian scientists. In scripture God asks us “to cast all our burdens upon the Lord” and to knock, seek, and ask for help from God. Indeed, some of those burdens and questions we ask of God are to help us find solutions – especially scientific ones through greater understanding of His world – to address our problems and improve our lives.
Below is more response from Is The Belief In The Supernatural Harmful? Get the answer here. (sciencepastor.com):
“Is the Belief in the Supernatural Harmful?”
“Humanists must be desperate to try this argument. The premise is false, and even if it were true, it provides no proof nor evidence that supernatural miracles never happened. At best, a humanist might say, “I don’t like that supernatural miracles happened, because I believe they harmed people.” It is a belief they could hold, but it is not in accordance with historical reality. Does the following humanist’s description sound anything like Biblical Christianity?”
“…they performed religious activities in an effort to obtain the assistance of benevolent supernatural beings or thwart the influence of malicious ones.”
“This is not Christianity. Not at all. It is describing people who follow pagan gods, including Hindu gods and Buddhists trying to increase their karma. These types of beliefs are part of the reason why technological progress was limited prior to Christianity. People believed in capricious and arbitrary gods who needed to be bribed, cajoled, and tricked into helping humanity.”
“Dear humanist: don’t use examples from paganism to try to discredit the Bible.”
“An example of a “misdirection of energy” given by the humanist writer, are the filthy conditions in European cities during the Middle Ages. The lack of sanitation contributed to multiple out-breaks of disease resulting in death.”
“That there were unsanitary conditions is a true statement. The lie is that these conditions existed because people engaged in religious activities (taught in the Bible) instead of using science to discover scientific solutions. The fact is the opposite is true. The poor sanitary conditions resulted from people applying the scientific knowledge of the day. If they had followed what the Bible teaches, the poor sanitary conditions would not have existed.”
“(Science) in the Middle Ages did not know that filth was bad… nor that filth was the source of disease. They did not know about microbes, germs, and viruses. It is also true that people at the time of Moses also did not know these things. Yet, the Mosaic Law includes provisions concerning cleanliness, sanitary practices, and appropriate treatments for people with infectious diseases that were practical and effective at stopping the spread of disease.”
“People did not know about germs, but God did. Through His law He told people how to protect themselves and others from dis-ease and infections.”
“During the 14th century, the bubonic plague spread throughout Europe. Many Jews followed the sanitary laws of the Bible as a normal part of a Biblical lifestyle. The Jewish death rate from the plague was half, and in some places possibly as low as 5%1 that of the Gentile (non-Jewish) population. The Gentiles ignored the Bible and… unfortunately, they died in much greater numbers. Arturo Castiglioni writing in “A History of Medicine” notes that:”
“The laws against leprosy in Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of a sanitary legislation.” (1941, page 147)

“People did not live in filth in the Middle Age because they believed in the supernatural. They lived in filth because they did not know what the Bible taught, and turned to other means to try to protect themselves from the plague. Yes, people employed superstitious practices such as flagellation, burning incense, and sitting between two fires. People also believed the plague was a punishment sent by God. However, because people believed in and practiced these things, does not make them Biblical. If they had followed what the Bible taught, many fewer would have died.”
“Conclusion: The humanist assumptions that belief in the supernatural negatively affects human activity are not supported by historical reality.”
More responses on this claim can be found here:
Do demons cause sickness? What do humanist claim? (sciencepastor.com)
Can Religious Acts or Cerimonies Cure Disease and Afflictions? What Does The Bible Say? (sciencepastor.com)

G. The Bible approves outrageous cruelties
Claims of cruelty in basic Christian teachings
1. He damned the whole human race and cursed the entire creation because of the acts of two people (Genesis 3:16-23; Romans 5:18); he drowned pregnant women and innocent children and animals at the time of the Flood (Genesis 7:20-23); he tormented the Egyptians and their animals with hail and disease because pharaoh refused to let the Israelites leave Egypt (Exodus 9:8-11,25); and he killed Egyptian babies at the time of the Passover (Exodus 12:29-30).

Response: Whether you take Adam and Eve as real people or representative of the first two people, they are types of all of us. By that I mean they started out innocent then disobeyed God and became sinners. That’s us too. We can’t blame Adam and Eve – we in effect are them. Sin started with them, and all since them have sinned. To the extent God cursed the earth because of mankind’s sin, all of us are guilty. Before man arrived on the earth there was no sin.
Regarding the flood, the adults, youth, and accountable-aged children were evil. The innocent children and babies died but went to heaven. The animals don’t have souls, and all animals die, they just died in the flood all at once. Note: The fish didn’t die. As our Sovereign, God has the role of exacting justice. Except for Noah and his family, humankind had become extremely evil, so much so that it justified the flood.
Regarding the Exodus, God warned Pharoah to free the Hebrew slaves, and he refused. So, God kept turning up the heat on Pharoah until he finally relented. Man’s temporary suffering and physical death pale in comparison to the wellbeing of his soul. God used these events to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Israel’s God was the true God. God had chosen the Hebrews as the people through whom He would provide a Savior for all people, and He had promised them a land of their own. The exodus had to happen to get the Hebrews to their promised land. Through them, God later provided Jesus as Savior of all who would accept the gift of salvation by believing in Him.

2. After the Exodus he ordered the Israelites to exterminate the men, women, and children of seven nations and steal their land (Deuteronomy 7:1-2); he killed King David’s baby because of David’s adultery with Bathsheba (II Samuel 12:13-18); he required the torture and murder of his own son (e.g., Romans 3:24-25); and he promised to send non-Christians to eternal torture (e.g., Revelation 21:8).

Response: As mentioned above, God had promised the Hebrews that Canaan would be theirs. Since the Hebrews were God’s people, He needed them to be a righteous and obedient people who reflected God’s righteous values. God knew that the existing occupants of Canaan were idol worshippers and unrighteous. If they co-occupied Canaan with the Hebrews, the Hebrews would be negatively influenced toward their false gods and values. The inhabitants of Canaan knew the Hebrews were coming, and they had heard of the power of God leading them out of Egypt. So, they could have vacated the land. Since they didn’t, God led the Hebrews to kill the ones who would not flee. Unfortunately, the Hebrews did not kill all of them and eventually some intermarried and introduced idol worship to Israel.
Regarding David and Bethsheba’s baby conceived in adultery, God has a principle for mankind – you reap what you sow. The death of their first baby was a consequence of their sin. God did allow them to remain married, and one of their subsequent children was Soloman, who is in the genealogy of Jesus.
Regarding the torture and murder of His own Son, this accusation shows a lack of understanding of the nature of God and God’s selfless, loving, sacrificial payment for the sins of mankind. God is one being who has manifested Himself to us in three ways – as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was God Himself in human flesh who suffered and died on the cross to pay for all the sins of all people of all time. Can you imagine the extent of suffering justice would require for that, yet God did it because He loved us and had mercy on us.

Regarding sending non-Christians to eternal torture, God does not want any to perish in hell but for all to repent, believe in Christ, be saved, and go to heaven. God will be unjust with no one. Each person will be treated on how they responded to the light of God they had.
Everyone will receive either mercy or justice. The way to heaven is by God’s mercy, not by earning it; it is a gift from God based on one’s faith – faith in Jesus if they heard and understood the gospel, or if they never heard of Jesus, true faith in God (like Abraham) evidenced by trying to live by His righteous standards. If one ends up in hell, the punishment is just. Yes, hell is everlasting, but after a just amount of punishment the soul is destroyed. Jesus said, “Do not fear man who is able to destroy the body but fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul.” For sure, God is not unjust and will not punish a person more than they deserve. That shouldn’t give the lost any comfort. The Bible describes hell as fire – the worst pain we know of. Even if you just spent a year in unquenching fire, can you imagine the suffering. You don’t want to go there!

3. In I Samuel 15:3, the prophet Samuel gives King Saul this commandment from the Lord: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

Response: By today’s human standards, this does seem cruel. But this event is similar to the flood. God destroyed a wicked people who were enemies of the Hebrews through whom the Savior of the world would come. The Amalekites had afflicted Israel in their journey from Egypt to Canaan (as noted by Samuel in 1 Samuel 15:2), so they were not without guilt in the situation. In fact, God had already sworn that He would totally destroy the Amalekites for this action (Exodus 17:14). There is no indication that the Amalekites turned to God in any way during the long interval between that time and the events in 1 Samuel 15. Like the flood, which killed women and children, the total destruction of the people was judged necessary by God, who can see the future, to ensure His plan to provide the Savior of the world through the Jews succeeded. Infants that were killed went to heaven. The animals were killed because Israel was not to get any spoils or make financial profit from the event.

4. Ezekiel 9:4-7 has this harrowing account: “And the Lord said unto him, Go through . . . the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark. . . .”

Response: This was not an actual event; it was one of a series of visions Ezekiel had. The vision pictured the coming judgment when mankind faces the Lord at the end of time.

5. Hosea 13:16 describes a punishment from the Lord: “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

Response: Not a punishment from the Lord! Hos 13:16 is a simple statement of future fact (i.e. a prophecy) – Samaria was unfaithful to God (by rebellion) and thus would be invaded by barbarous people who would do unspeakable things to the inhabitants of Samaria.
That is, because the Samarians had rejected God (rebelled against God) and His protection, God, in obedience to their wish, would withdraw protection and the prophet simply states the natural consequences of that series of choices – disastrous results indeed:
– Samaria will bear her guilt [i.e. its consequences] because she has rebelled against her God [i.e. rejected God]
– They will fall by the sword [of the invading army], their little ones will be dashed to pieces [[by the invading army], and their pregnant women ripped open [by the invading army]

6. Deuteronomy 32:23-25 says that after the Israelites incited God’s jealousy by worshiping other gods, he vowed: “I will spend mine arrows upon them. . . . The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.”

Response: From Cruelty In Bible – God’s Judgment on the Israelites – Deuteronomy 32:23-25 (sciencepastor.com) we have this answer: “In this part of the speech, God, through Moses, is warning the people of Israel about turning to other gods. God is looking into the future, and warning the people of Israel. Even though they will then be in the Promised Land, if they turn away from God things will not go well for them.
The phrase “I will spend mine arrows” refers to other kingdoms and empires that will come against Israel should God withdraw protection. How does God do this?
God punishes nations by withdrawing His blessing, just as He is doing with America today. As God withdraws His blessing, that also withdraws His protection, allowing the enemies of Israel to defeat, plunder, and kill them.
Conclusion: God is not cruel. God is warning the people of Israel, well in advance, about what will happen if they turn to other gods. None of the “bad” things that came upon Israel came without warning. We have a loving God. A God who, far in advance and very clearly, makes the situation known: If they turn away from God, God will give them what they want and turn away from them, leaving them open to terror and destruction by their enemies.”

7. In Numbers chapter 31, the Lord approves of these instructions that Moses gave to the Israelite soldiers about how to treat certain women and children captured in war: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves

Response: Again from Cruelty In Bible – Balaam Finds A Way To Curse Israel – Numbers 31:17-18 (sciencepastor.com) we have this answer: To understand what was going on we need to go back to the plains of Moab and the history recorded in Numbers chapters 22 through 25.
Balak, the king of the Midianites, hires the evil prophet Balaam to curse Israel. Balak wants Israel destroyed. However, God would not allow Balaam to curse Israel. Instead, no matter how hard he tried, Balaam blessed Israel. This was not good for Balaam. He was to get a huge payment for cursing Israel, but now it appeared he would leave in disgrace and with no money.
Then Balaam came up with a way to curse Israel by getting them to bring God’s curse on themselves. Balaam told king Balak that the Midianites needed to seduce the people of Israel with prostitutes and idolatry. This disobedience of God would result in Israel bringing a curse on themselves. Balak followed Balaam’s advice, and Israel fell into sin, worshiping Baal of Peor and committing fornication with Midianite women. This resulted in the death of 24,000 people. (Numbers 25:1-12)
The humanist statement makes it seem as though Numbers 31:17-18 are general instructions for war. That is a false representation of what is happening. Here again they are misrepresenting what scripture says. These are not general instructions for war, but specific instructions for how Israel is to deal with the Midianites who seduced them into sin. This misrepresentation of scripture makes this claim invalid.
Why were young men, and women who were not virgins, targeted? They were the ones specifically and directly responsible for corrupting Israel. This was justice, and it ensured the end of the threat from the Midianites, preventing them from seducing Israel again.
READ MORE: www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-31-17-Midianites.html
Conclusion: Once again, we see that God is not cruel. His response to Midianite sexual and spiritual seduction was limited, just, and appropriate.”

8. Isaiah 13:9,15-18 contains this message from God: “Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger. . . . Every one that is found shall be thrust through. . . . Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes . . . and their wives ravished. Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them. . . . [T]hey shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes will not spare children.”

Response: From Cruelty in Bible – Does God Command Babies be Dashed to Pieces? – Isaiah 13 (sciencepastor.com) we have this summary: Verse 9, referenced by the humanists, is an end times prophecy, and verses 15-18 are a near term prophecy about the Medes con-quest of Babylon. Verse 16, describing babies being killed, is not a command from God. It is describing the brutality of the invading Medo-Persians.
Conclusion: The humanists are mixing two widely separate times to make it seem God is to blame for the cruelty of the Medo-Persians. In reality, the humanistic cruelty of the Medo-Persians is being described.

Examples of God’s Other Cruel Methods
Claim: He caused the earth to open and swallow entire families (Numbers 16:37-32); he used fire to devour people (e.g., Leviticus 10:1-2; Numbers 11:1-2); and he punished the Israelites with wars, famines, and pestilences (e.g., Ezekiel 5:11-17). persecution (e.g., Deuteronomy 13:12-16); and he caused cannibalism (Jeremiah 19:9). He sent wild animals such as bears (II Kings 2:23-24), lions (II Kings 17:24-25), and serpents (Numbers 21:6) to attack people; he sanctioned slavery (e.g., Leviticus 25:44-46); he ordered religious

Response: Here is a comprehensive response from Is God Just In Opening The Earth or Using Fire To Burn People – The Sadistic God (sciencepastor.com)
Humanist claims: The God of the Bible displayed his sadistic tendencies by employing a variety of other means to torment and kill people.
He caused the earth to open and swallow entire families (Numbers 16:37-32); he used fire to devour people (e.g., Leviticus 10:1-2; Numbers 11:1-2); and he punished the Israelites with wars, famines, and pestilences (e.g., Ezekiel 5:11-17).>
He sent wild animals such as bears (II Kings 2:23-24), lions (II Kings 17:24-25), and serpents (Numbers 21:6) to attack people; he sanctioned slavery (e.g., Leviticus 25:44-46); he ordered religious persecution (e.g., Deuteronomy 13:12-16); and he caused cannibalism (Jeremiah 19:9).
The humanist author is now trying to pile it on, without providing any explanations for the examples he brings up. Maybe he is thinking that if he brings up enough accusations one of them may be interpreted in a way that might make God look bad.
What we have are ten accusations that God has “tormented and killed people.” There is no context nor explanation accompanying any of these. We are to blindly accept the assumption these are sadistic, and use our imaginations to fill in the reasons why.
Answering all of these will result in a long chapter. If you do not want to read it all, here is a summary. Each of these punishments was just and appropriate for the crime. We have repeatedly seen this same thing in the humanist accusations. God is not sadistic; He is fair and His punishments fit the situation and circumstances. Now let’s get into the details of each accusation.
Numbers 16:37-32, Leviticus 10:1-2 & Numbers 11: I think there is a typo in the verse numbers on the humanist’s web page. I think they are referring to Numbers 16:31-35. Here is what it says:
Numbers 16:31-35, “As he finished speaking all these words, the ground that was under them split open; and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah with their possessions. So, they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. All Israel who were around them fled at their outcry, for they said, “The earth may swallow us up!” Fire also came forth from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense.”

Leviticus 10:1-2, “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.”
2
Numbers 11:1-2, “Now the people became like those who complain of adversity in the hearing of the Lord; and when the Lord heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp. The people therefore cried out to Moses, and Moses prayed to the Lord and the fire died out.”

Once we have the rest of the story, we will see that these punishments come on people who have directly disobeyed God.
God set the tribe of Levi (Levites) aside for service to Him. The Kohathites were Levites who, when the camp moved, had the job of carrying the furniture and other items used in the Tabernacle. They did not like their work and began to covert the duties of the priests. Korah stirred up a group of 250 men who challenged Moses and Aaron’s right to the priesthood. It was an open rebellion against Moses and more importantly against God. Here is what Moses said:
Moses said, “By this you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these deeds; for this is not my doing. If these men die the death of all men or if they suffer the fate of all men, then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord brings about an entirely new thing and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that is theirs, and they descend alive into Sheol, then you will understand that these men have spurned the Lord.”
That these people were “swallowed” by the earth was a one-time, supernatural event that demonstrated that Moses was speaking the truth of God and they were in rebellion against God. Such a dramatic death was necessary so the people, a people who had just come out of 400 years of only knowing idolatrous Egyptian gods, would know the true God and His power. Remember one of the major problems Israel had, after being in Egypt for 400 years, is that they did not know God. They were familiar with the Egyptian gods and they still believed in those gods. They needed to learn about the truth, power and authority of the true God.
Consuming People with Fire?
The humanists do not say why this is a problem. That makes it difficult to address their (unknown) concern.
The Hebrew word translated as “consuming fire” in our English Bibles literally means to utterly destroy or consume. It is refer-ring to complete destruction. God Himself is called a “consuming fire” (in English) in Deuteronomy 4:24 and again in 9:3. In every case the Bible is saying there was complete destruction.
Fire is also associated with God’s wrath and frequently associated with purification (refining fire), and that is what we are seeing in Leviticus 10:1-2 and Numbers 11:1-2. It is a refining fire that completely consumes them.
Notice that this incident takes place during the Exodus. God’s people have been freed from slavery in Egypt, but not from their spiritual slavery to idols. They long to return to Egypt (Exodus 16:3) and they even made a golden calf (Exodus 32). A calf was a major Egyptian deity. God had to make it clear that He is the ONE and ONLY God, and He did that through a dramatic display of fire consuming those who had rebelled against Him
God had laid out the law and the consequences of disobeying the law. The death penalty was the appropriate punishment for treason. God used consuming fire to dramatically demonstrate (making it memorable) the need to cleanse the people of their sin.
Punishing the Israelites with wars, famines, and pestilence
The example given here is Ezekiel 5:11-17. This is a prophecy that is a repetition of the prophecy in 5:2-3. The Jews had turned from God, had disobeyed God in spite of His kindness, and they had even defiled the sanctuary, demonstrating how totally wicked they were. A just punishment was coming. God would withdraw his blessing from Judah, and even withdraw His glory from the temple (Ezekiel 10) … without His protection the Babylonians would conquer Judah and lay siege to Jerusalem, and conquer it. Sieges often led to famine and disease in the city that was under siege, and this was exactly what God was saying would happen. God is warning Israel through Ezekiel… but they refuse to turn away from evil and the prophecy becomes reality.
Ezekiel 5:11-17 – Wars, Famines, and Pestilence
The next example given by the humanist is Ezekiel 5:11-17. This prophecy is a repetition of the prophecy in 5:2-3, and similar to the one we discussed in chapter 30. The Jews had turned away from God. They had disobeyed God in spite of His kindness; and they had even defiled the sanctuary, demonstrating how totally wicked they were. God is warning them a just punishment was coming. God would withdraw his blessing from Judah, and even withdraw His glory from the temple (Ezekiel 10). Without God’s protection, the Babylonians would conquer Judah, lay siege to Jerusalem and conquer it. Sieges often led to famine and disease in the city that was under siege, and this was exactly what God was saying would happen. God is warning Israel through Ezekiel, but the Israelites refuse to turn away from evil and the prophecy becomes reality.
2nd Kings 2:23-24 – God Sends Bears
This story about Elisha is a favorite one frequently used to claim God is unjustly cruel. Here are the verses:
“Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.
If you qu”ickly read these verses, it seems as though God uses two bears to maul 42 kids who simply called Elisha a “baldy.” How-ever, there is a lot more to the story. Let’s go through this step-by-step:
First notice that the “lads” were not killed. The bears tore them up. Other translations say they were “mauled.” While some of the 42 probably were seriously injured, none of them died. If someone says the bears killed 42 people, as is frequently stated, that is a misrepresentation.
Also, how old were these “lads?” Some Bibles even translate this as “children.” However, that is not an accurate translation. The Hebrew word used here can be translated as “children,” but a more accurate translation would be “young adult.” These “lads” were most likely in their late teens or early 20’s — old enough to know right from wrong and to be accountable for their actions.
What was the reason this happened? Because they called the prophet “baldhead?” That was a serious insult in those days. However, that was not the issue. The reason God sent the bears was because they taunted him to “go up.” To understand why this was serious, we need more context.
This is Elisha the prophet. Just before prior to this, God, using a whirlwind, took Elijah the prophet directly up into heaven. Elijah was a prophet who delivered God’s words to the people. He spoke with the authority of God. When Elijah spoke on behalf of God, it was as though God Himself was speaking. Elisha was his replacement, and that means he also spoke with the authority of God.
Where did this take place? On the road to Jerusalem near Bethel. Bethel was a center of pagan Jewish worship. Idols had been set up there to get the Jewish people of the Northern Kingdom to stop going to the temple in Jerusalem. They supposedly could worship right there in Bethel… and they did. However, it was pagan idol worship.
Why was the taunt of “go up” such a big problem? They were demanding that he prove he was a prophet like Elijah, by demanding that he “go up” into heaven the same way Elijah had done. These were pagan followers of false idols who were mocking Elisha in a way that made it seem he was not a prophet. Making it seem he was not truly Elijah’s replacement.
To mock God’s ambassador is to mock God. In addition, to mock Elisha this way took away his authority and called into question his ability to speak for God. He was about to enter the main center of pagan worship for the Northern Kingdom. It needed to be clear—with no doubt in anyone’s mind—that Elisha spoke for God. That is why God sent two she bears. That made it clear that Elisha truly was God’s representative. The result was that it was obvious… undeniable… that Elisha spoke for God.
…and lions II Kings 24-25
For lions the humanist references II Kings 17:24-25. Here is what it says:
“The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from Avva and from Hamath and Sepharvaim, and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the sons of Israel. So, they possessed Samaria and lived in its cities. At the beginning of their living there, they did not fear the Lord; therefore, the Lord sent lions among them which killed some of them.”
Let’s quickly summarize our relationship with God. He created us; He owns us; He can do whatever He wishes with us. However, God is good. What He wants is for us to live with Him forever. That’ is why He died so we can live.
In the section of scripture referenced by the humanists, Assyria has conquered the Northern Kingdom, also known as Samaria. Most of the Jews living there have been relocated to other cities in the Assyrian Empire, and outsiders (Gentiles) have been moved in. However, the new people did not know God. They worshipped other gods, and had no interest in the true God. The just penalty for this is death. The Bible does not explain why God uses lions, but He certainly has the right and the ability to do that. Moreover, by using lions God brought the penalty for their sin in a way that got attention.
Humanists might say these people had their own religion, why not leave them alone? They were happy with their beliefs. However, that was not a good situation. Their believing in something does not make it true. Sorry, but that is reality. Believing in any god other than the one true God, the creator God of the Bible, leads to death. In this instance, God used lions to punish those who brought false gods into the land that belonged to God’s people. The news would spread and as a result, many would understand who God is and turn to Him, and have life.
…and serpents: Numbers 21:6
“The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people Israel died.”
This happened while the Israelites were wandering in the desert after the exodus from Egypt. The people were complaining, and they were tired of eating manna. God had been taking care of them, providing for them, and protecting them from their enemies. However, they had become impatient, and were complaining against God… no longer trusting God. Therefore, God sent fiery serpents. What was the result? Here is verse 7:
“So, the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and you; intercede with the Lord, that He may remove the serpents from us.” And Moses interceded for the people.”
Because of the poisonous serpents, the people realized they were doing wrong. They confessed, repented and turned back to trusting the Lord. Mission accomplished.
In addition, God provided a way for people to be cured should a serpent bite them. He had Moses make a bronze serpent and put it on a staff. Anyone who was bitten could look at the staff and be saved. Looking at the staff was an act of will, an intentional act a person had to do. This action demonstrated they believed the Lord, and their belief is what saved them.
Next up… God Sanctioned Slavery: Leviticus 25:44-46
Here is a question for humanists… what is wrong with slavery? It is survival of the fittest. So, if I am fitter… I am stronger… what is wrong with my making you my slave? After all, we are just chemicals. What is wrong with one bunch of chemicals using another bunch of chemicals to benefit themselves? Please answer without using principles of morality from the Bible.
Slavery, defined as American early 19th century style slavery, is only a problem if human beings have worth. We are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and that gives us infinite worth. No hu-man has the right to enslave another bearer of God’s image. We be-long to God and God only. With that foundation, let’s now talk about slavery. The humanist reference Leviticus 25:44-46:
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.”

Here is the problem. For us the word slavery brings up an im-age of race-based slavery in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, that is not what the Bible calls slavery. “Slavery” had a different meaning for the people in the Bible. A meaning mostly based on economics, not race. That is why some Bible translations use the term “bond servant” instead of “slave.” The “slavery” of the Bible in no way resembled what we now think of as slavery.
Please note, the Bible strongly condemns slavery based on kidnaping. Kidnapping was the basis of American slavery. The Biblical penalty for kidnapping people to make them slaves was death. American slavery was an abomination condemned by scripture.
“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” – Exodus 21:16

The New Testament also condemns buying/selling slaves (1st Timothy 1:8-10). Here again we see that American slavery is not what the Bible talks about. When you see the word “slavery” in the Bible, it is not talking about what we in America typically think of as slavery.
Let’s get some context. Start reading Leviticus chapter 25 beginning at verse 39, and you will see that Hebrew “slaves” were to be treated as family, and only serve as slaves until a Jubilee year1. At that time, they were released from all their obligations.
It is also important to note that becoming a “slave” was voluntary. The slave, not the owners, initiated it. In those days, there were no social welfare programs. If you could not support yourself, the best option was to find someone who would provide for your needs in return for your work. Many physicians and lawyers were “slaves” and in some cases, “slaves” could become very wealthy.
Leviticus 25-44-46 is referring to people outside of Israel who, unable to support themselves or possibly for other reasons, decided to become a “slave” of an Israelite. The Bible condemns forced slavery (Exodus 21:16), but provides a means for people to have shelter, food, and their other needs met by becoming a “slave.”
What happened if a slave ran away? Here is the answer in Deuteronomy 23:15, they must be protected and not returned to their “master.”
“You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.”

This is not our understanding of “slavery” at all. For the people in Israel slavery was a way for the destitute to work for their food and shelter. In many instances, it was similar to the employ-employer relationship we have today.
On the other hand, pagan (Roman) slavery was brutal. Slaves were considered as the same as an ox that pulled a cart. The only difference was that a slave could talk. The problem was that the Romans followed their own pantheon of gods and rejected the God of the Bible… and how they treated slaves reflected that.
Next Topic: God Ordered Religious Persecution (Deuteronomy 13:12-16)
The scripture humanists reference is Deuteronomy 13:12-16
“If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to live in, anyone saying that some worthless men have gone out from among you and have seduced the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ (whom you have not known), then you shall investigate and search out and inquire thoroughly. If it is true and the matter established that this abomination has been done among you, you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying it and all that is in it and its cattle with the edge of the sword.”

This is talking about Israelite cities given to them by God, whose residents were turning away from God and worshipping pagan gods.
We have seen this before… turning away from God and to other gods is a serious issue. As described here, the death penalty is ap-propriate for those who turn from God and worship idols.
The reason why the death penalty is appropriate is that those who turn away from God tend to lead others away from God. They lead others into spiritual death and an eternity separated from God. To stop it from spreading, and prevent the eternal destruction of large numbers of people, God commanded that those cities who have turned away from Him to be wiped out. It was the only way to save everyone else.
To a humanist this may not seem reasonable. That is because they do not understand how serious this is. Notice, the death penalty only applies to those who once knew God and turned away from God. These are people who once belonged to God, and have now become children of Satan. People who once had life and now are walking dead. They are people looking to seduce others into becoming walking dead. The death penalty is the only reasonable way to save others from being snatched away from life.
BTW, this no longer applies today. We are under a new covenant in which we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, holding us se-cure in our salvation. In Old Testament times (Deuteronomy) they were under the law, including the prescribed ceremonies, and they could bring condemnation on themselves by turning away from God. That is not possible today.
Next Topic: God Caused Cannibalism – Jeremiah 19:9
I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life will distress them. – Jeremiah 19:9

We have talked about this several times. First, this is a prophecy about what will happen if the people of Israel do not change. As we have seen over and over, God warns people and nations about their coming judgment. If the people of Israel paid attention to what God was saying, and turned away from their sin, they would not experience this prophecy. However, they did not listen to God.
In this prophecy, God is describing what will happen if Jerusalem comes under a siege. Food will run out and people will starve, some of them turning to cannibalism. Why does this happen? Because God has withdrawn His blessings. He has withdrawn His pro-tection… and that has allowed Babylon (in this case) to put Jerusalem under siege. So yes, in one sense God has allowed the cannibalism because He is no longer protecting the Jews from the armies of Babylon. However, He is not the cause nor the source of this evil.
Do these people deserve His protection? Read Jeremiah 19:1-8. They have forsaken God. Rejected Him. Turned to other gods, worshipping and sacrificing to other gods. So what does God do? He gives them what they want. They have rejected Him, so He leaves them on their own, withdrawing His blessing and protection. They turned their backs on God, so God turns His back on them. That is fair and just. The consequences are a Babylonian siege that leads to starvation. That is also fair and just. Why? Because it is the consequence of the people rejecting God and going their own way.
CONCLUSION: God is not sadistic. His actions and punishments are just and appropriate.

H. The Bible Approves Disproportionate Punishments
Claim: The biblical God is also guilty of inflicting punishments that are grossly disproportionate to the acts committed. In the American legal system, such disproportion violates the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Obviously, to punish people who are completely innocent, as seen in the preceding Bible verses, constitutes punishment that is horribly disproportionate to the moral culpability of the recipients.
Response: In the examples above (the flood, Amalekites) where babies were killed, we stated “the adults, youth, and accountable-aged children were evil. The innocent children and babies died but went to heaven.” People received judgment because of their sins, and babies were affected by their parents’ sins, but they were not tortured but, being innocent, went straight to heaven.

Claim: The Old Testament says the Lord prescribed execution for the “crimes” of working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15); cursing one’s parents (Leviticus 20:9); worshiping other gods (Deuteronomy 17:2-5); enticing a friend or family member to worship other gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10); being a witch, medium, or wizard (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 20:27); engaging in homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13); and not being a virgin on one’s wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).
Response: Why were God’s punishments so harsh on His people the Hebrews? The answer is straightforward – these were God’s people. They were supposed to represent God’s morality and righteousness to the rest of the world. Thus, He needed them to be obedient to His values and standards. So, He made the punishments severe to motivate them to be obedient.

Claim: In the New Testament, God became far worse in regard to imposing excessively severe punishments. It would be hard to imagine anything more cruel and disproportionate than punishing people with eternal torture for mere disbelief that Jesus was the son of God. The inability to believe that proposition harms no one, and it has been disbelieved by some of the greatest benefactors of humanity. Nonetheless, God promises to punish them and all other nonbelievers with the most horrible pain conceivable.
Response: Whichever humanist penned this completely misunderstands the Gospel. Let me take you back to the beginning. From the viewpoint that God exists and is our creator, why did God create us? From a thoughtful Christian’s point of view, He created us to have a loving relationship with each one of us. A relationship where we recognize Him as our Sovereign and are thankful for the gift of life including thanking Him daily for each new blessing and asking Him for strength to handle our problems. We love Him in return for His love, blessings, and kindnesses toward us. For this to be meaningful to God, it had to be voluntary on our part. That meant He had to give us free will. But free will meant we have the freedom to do or not do what God desired, and the story of Adam and Eve depicts what we all end up doing – we rebel and do what we want rather than what God wants. Not all the time but a lot of times. This is sin, and God in His foresight knew we would all sin,
So, what was God to do? He wanted a voluntary, loving relationship, but He knew we would all end up as sinners. Even worse, God, who is so holy and pure He “cannot even look upon sin,” and who is a God of justice, would have to punish our sin. God’s own standard for sin’s punishment Is death – both physical and spiritual. At that realization, before God ever made us, He could have said that’s not right. I am not going to create a mankind where they all are so punished. But God came up with a solution that would allow Him to create us and still remain righteous. God has a principle. which Jesus taught us, that says greater love has no one than this that a person lay down His life for another. So, God determined that He Himself would take on the punishment for all mankind. He would take our punishment so that He could have mercy on us and forgive us of our sins without punishing us. To do that, since God is eternal, He would have to become man – Jesus. As scripture explains, the Spirit of God impregnated a virgin and she bore Jesus – Son of God and Son of Man. Jesus’s mission was to pay for all the sins of all people for all time, and that’s what He did on the cross.

So, God offers eternal life, forgiveness, and peace with Him as a gift to every person. All they have to do is admit their guilt as sinners in an attitude of repentance (not in an attitude of “Oh boy, now I can sin all I want and not get punished”) and believe what God did for them through Jesus – believe to the extent of counting on it for forgiveness and being right with God. God did not have to do this. Can you imagine how much suffering would be involved in the punishment for all the sins of all mankind for all time? For God to be willing to go through that shows how much He values a relationship with each one of us – how much each one of us is worth to God – how much each one of us is absolutely worth!
Humanist, from the viewpoint that God gave you a life and gave you free will and gave you a conscience to know right from wrong and you have many times chosen wrong and deserve physical and spiritual death, can you not appreciate that God has taken your punishment and offers you the gift of forgiveness and eternal life. The punishment you judge so severe God has taken upon Himself. Is that cruel? No, that is love and mercy!

I. The biblical God is violent and that Incites human violence
A serious problem with the violence and injustice in the Bible is that, all too often, the teachings and example of the biblical God have incited cruel acts by his followers.
Claim: Many of them reasoned that since God, who is considered just and loving, committed or approved of the most brutal acts, good Christians need not have qualms about behaving likewise. Such logic led the American patriot Thomas Paine to say, “The belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man.” [11]
Joseph McCabe’s treatise The History of Torture illustrates the reasoning process. McCabe reports that during the Middle Ages, there was more torture used in Christian Europe than in any society in history.[12]
The main cause of this cruelty was the Christian doctrine of eternal punishment. McCabe explains: “If, it was natural to reason, God punishes men with eternal torment, it is surely lawful for men to use doses of it in a good cause.” [13]
Other historical examples of violent and unjust acts supported by biblical teachings include: the Inquisition; the Crusades; the burning of witches; religious wars; pogroms against Jews; persecution of homosexuals; forceful conversions of heathens; slavery; beatings of children; brutal treatment of the mentally ill; suppression of scientists; and whippings, mutilations, and violent executions of persons convicted of crimes. Those acts were a regular part of the Christian world for centuries.
Thomas Paine was entirely justified in saying about the Bible: “It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel.” [14]

Response: Here is a thorough response from God’a Actions In The Bible Lead Humans To Be Violent (sciencepastor.com): This site answers each specific claim. Here is the opening
“I hope by now you can quickly identify the problem with this statement. As we have seen, all of God’s actions are just and appropriate, not cruel. He defines law breaking, establishes the penalties for breaking the law, and He warns people, in advance of judging them, when they are breaking the law. In many instances, He gives nations hundreds of years to change their ways. And, although I’ve not mentioned this before, God, in His mercy, often does not impose the specified earthly penalty on the guilty. God’s love, patience, and mercy shines throughout the Bible.” I would add that God, Christ, and the Bible often get the blame for man’s mistreatment of man, but it is always man NOT following Jesus’ teachings (love, compassion, mercy, kindness, forgiveness, etc.) that result in atrocities.
Here is his closing: “I see nothing here that is evil and is supported by the teachings of the Bible. None. There are actions that are evil, such as brutal treatment of the mentally ill, and pogroms against Jews. They happened and were falsely justified using scripture. However, scripture does not support them. They were the actions of evil men.
In addition, there are accusations on this list that are pure fiction, such as the suppression of scientists. Overall, this list is another fantasy (aka. fake news) … a list of fictions being used to promote humanist beliefs.
An important principle to keep in mind is: The actions of people calling themselves “Christians” do not define what the Bible teaches. The words of scripture alone define what the Bible teaches.
Conclusion: There is nothing but false accusations and fiction in the claims in this section of the humanist web page.”

J. The Bible has incorrect Ideas about the structure of the physical world
Claim: “Humanists also repudiate the Bible because of its mistaken ideas about the structure of the physical world. As is the case with the Bible’s statements opposing the laws of nature, the book’s views on this subject are similar to beliefs held by primitive and illiterate people throughout history.
Stationary Earth as the Center of the Universe
An erroneous Bible teaching caused Christian theologians to oppose Galileo’s proof that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. In the sixteenth century, Copernicus proposed this theory about the double motion of the earth. In the following century, Galileo’s telescope proved that Copernicus had been right.
To oppose the Copernican doctrine and show that the earth remains stationary while the sun moves around it, the Catholic Church pointed to the tenth chapter of the book of Joshua.[27] There we are told that Joshua, in order to have a longer period of daylight in which to carry out the Lord’s command to slaughter the Amorites, ordered the sun to stand still – not the earth.
Other passages demonstrating that the earth remains stationary include Psalm 93:1 (“The world is [e]stablished, that it cannot be moved.”); I Chronicles 16:30 (“[T]he world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.”); and Psalm 104:5 (The Lord “laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever.”).
Because of Galileo’s support for the Copernican doctrine, the Inquisition threatened him with torture, forced him to recant, and subjected him to imprisonment.[28] Additionally, for nearly 200 years the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books condemned all writings that affirmed the double motion of the earth.[29]
Protestants weren’t much better. For generations the major branches of Protestantism – Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anglican – denounced the Copernican doctrine as contrary to scripture.[30]
A Flat Earth Resting on Pillars
The Bible supports the primitive notion of a flat earth. In the sixth century, a Christian monk named Cosmas wrote a book, titled Topographia Christiana, describing the structure of the physical world. Basing his views on the Bible, Cosmas said the earth is flat and surrounded by four seas.[31]
The prophecy at Revelation 1:7 was a basis for his conclusion. It states that when Christ returns, “every eye shall see him.” Cosmas reasoned that if the earth were round, people on the other side would not see Christ’s second coming.[32]
Further support for the idea of a flat earth is contained in the verses mentioning the “four corners of the earth” (e.g., Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1) and the “ends of the earth” (e.g., Jeremiah 16:19; Acts 13:47).
Because of such Bible teachings, most of the early church fathers thought the earth is flat.[33] In fact, the view of the world contained in Cosmas’ book was accepted for several centuries as orthodox Christian doctrine.[34] Even in the fifteenth century, when Christopher Columbus proposed to sail west from Spain to reach the East Indies, the biblical notion of a flat earth was a major source of opposition to him.[35]
As for the question of what holds the flat earth in place, the Bible indicates the answer is “pillars.” The pillars of the earth are mentioned in several verses in the Old Testament (I Samuel 2:8; Psalm 75:3; Job 9:6). These verses reflect the belief of the ancient Hebrews that the earth rests upon pillars.[36]
Sky a Solid Dome Containing Windows
The Bible promotes the idea that the sky is a solid dome covering the earth. In the creation account given in the first chapter of Genesis, verse 17 says the Lord set the sun and moon “in the firmament” to provide light for the earth. The Hebrew word translated as firmament is raqia, which means “hammered metal.” [37]
More support for the notion of a domed earth is found at Job 37:18 (where the sky is described as like a “molten lookingglass”); Isaiah 40:22 (God “stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in”); and Revelation 6:14 (“And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together.”).
This concept of the sky was common in the ancient Near East and taken for granted by the Bible writers.[38] Based on the Bible, most of the early church fathers accepted the notion of the firmament.[39] The same position was supported by Cosmas, and thus was part of orthodox Christian doctrine for several centuries.[40]
Orthodox doctrine also contained the related idea that the firmament has windows – which are opened by angels when God wants to send rain upon the earth. Cosmas believed that when the windows are opened, some of the waters contained above the firmament (which are mentioned at Genesis 1:17) fall to the earth. Cosmas’ basis for this belief was the statement, at Genesis 7:11-12, that at the time of the Noachian flood the “windows of heaven were opened” and the rain fell.[41]
Response: Often God used people and worked through them to accomplish His purposes on earth. He inspired people to write the books of the Bible The people He used had the level of scientific understanding common to humanity of their day. When Joshua needed more time to win the battle, He asked God to give it to Him via the way he understood time– back the sun up. God knew the truth and did a miracle. If Joshua had had today’s understanding of the universe, he would have likely asked God to back up the earth on its axis – no less a miracle. Informed Christians realize that God has two books – the Bible and creation or nature, and each book has to inform the other. The Bible is not God’s science book – creation/nature is. The Bible’s description of nature will reflect the level of knowledge the authors whom God used to write it. Those who take a stand on some Biblical representation of nature without including the truths of God’s other book just dig a hole for themselves and misrepresent their God.

The whole world of Cosmas day believed the earth was flat. It seems flat. It was not a “teaching” of the Bible, just a reflection in the Bible of what man believed in that day and time. The same is true of the sky as a dome. And phrases such as the four corners of the earth, the ends of the earth, and the pillars of the earth are simply euphemisms people use without implying any physical structure. Firmament means the sky or heavens especially when seen as a tangible thing, not a solid thing.
Here are the science pastor’s responses:
Science Bests The Bible: Really? Not if you Understand The Bible correctly (sciencepastor.com)
Science Is Better? Does Scripture Support The Earth At Center of Universe? (sciencepastor.com)
What? The Bible Teaches A Flat Earth? I didn’t know that. (sciencepastor.com)
The Church Fathers Teach A Flat Earth? What’s next?!! (sciencepastor.com)
Does The Bible Teach There Is A Solid Dome Over The Earth? Nope! (sciencepastor.com)
Does The Bible Teach There Is A Solid Dome Over The Earth? Nope! Not At All! (sciencepastor.com)

Claim: Supernatural Signs in the Heavens
Bible stories led the Christian world to believe – for centuries – that God sends humankind signs in the heavens. Christians thought comets warn of divine anger and imminent punishment;[42] stars and meteors portend beneficial events such as the birth of heroes and great men;[43] eclipses signify divine distress in response to events on earth;[44] and storms and other destructive weather result from the anger of God or the malice of Satan.[45]
Response: While it is true that people of the past thought comets, eclipses, and unusual natural phenomena were signs from God, the Bible does not teach it. The references to White (footnotes 42, 43, 44, and 45) mentioned in the claim do not point to scripture but to what some people believed. These false beliefs do not imply that scripture does not mention signs. Here are a few so mentioned: The rainbow after the flood, the star announcing Jesus’ birth to the wise men, the angels telling the shepherds that “this will be a sign unto you. You will find the babe in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes”, Jesus’ answering the pharisees’ request for a sign by predicting His resurrection, and the sign that the end of time is near when world tribulation will be far worse than it has ever been. Also, in effect, every miracle in the Bible is a sign – a sign that there is a power that can alter nature – God. Also see The Theological Theory of Comets – Is This Biblical? (sciencepastor.com)

Claim: Additional Errors About the Physical World
The Bible has verses mentioning dragons (Jeremiah 51:34), unicorns (Isaiah 34:7), and cockatrices (Isaiah 11:8). These passages led many naturalists in the Middle Ages to think such mythical creatures actually exist.[46] The Bible is also incorrect in saying the bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13,19), the hare and rock badger chew the cud (Leviticus 11:5-6), and the mustard seed “is the smallest of all seeds” (Matthew 13:32). Finally, it’s inconsistent with science – and ludicrous – to believe that God confounded the language of humans because he was afraid they would build a tower high enough to reach heaven (Genesis 11:1-9).”
Response: Jeremiah 51:34 is translated monster, serpent, and sea monster in almost all translations. Only the King James version uses dragon. Dragon is likely used as a synonym of serpent. For example, we have dragons today – the bearded dragon, which is a large lizard. Unicorns were not only mentioned in Isaiah but also in Job. These references could simply refer to a rhinoceros, or they could refer to an extinct animal today. Cockatrice has two meanings – one a mythical creature from Greek and Roman times and the other a poisonous serpent or snake, The latter is its meaning in scripture. The bat is listed among the fowl or flying animals that are not to be food for man. The scripture simply means don’t eat these birds and don’t eat bats. Scripture listed all the birds and then added bats.

Rabbits chew the cud? Here is an explanation from Contradictions: Do Rabbits Really “Chew the Cud”? | Answers in Genesis: In the modern scientific classification system, animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. Cattle, sheep, deer, giraffes, and camels2 are ruminants. Ruminants have four stomach compartments. They swallow their food into one stomach compartment where food is partially digested. Then the food is regurgitated back into the mouth, chewed again, and then swallowed into a different stomach compartment. This process is called rumination.
So, is the Bible wrong? After all, rabbits are not ruminants.3 They do not have four-compartment stomachs. How can they “chew the cud”?

The Solution
Obviously, rabbits do not share the digestive anatomy of modern ruminants. However, to describe rabbits chewing the cud is not incorrect. Simply stated, it is not reasonable to accuse a 3500-year-old document of error because it does not adhere to a modern man-made classification system.
Consider what rabbits do. They engage in an activity called cecotrophy. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes. Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.
Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.
Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.
But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So, the phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth again.”
Also, most reference material on rabbit digestion says that the cecotrope pellet is swallowed whole and found intact in the rabbit stomach. However, experts have observed that rabbits keep the cecotrophe in the mouth for a time before swallowing.4 So even though the mucin membrane covering the cecotrope is not broken, the rabbit is able to knead it in its mouth before swallowing, possibly to enhance the process of redigestion.

Conclusion
So, is the Bible in error here? No, it is not. Rabbits re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments.

Also, here is science pastor’s responses to dragon, unicorns, etc. Dragons and Unicorns In The Bible? Oh, my! (sciencepastor.com) and
Is a bat a bird? Does a hare chew its cud? (sciencepastor.com)
Claim: Overall Effect of Bible Science
White summarizes the historical results of relying on the Bible for answers about the physical world. It’s not a pretty sight: “[T]here were developed, in every field, theological views of science which have never led to a single truth – which, without exception, have forced mankind away from the truth, and have caused Christendom to stumble for centuries into abysses of error and sorrow.” [47] In view of the Bible’s numerous mistaken beliefs about the physical world, there’s no reason to think its writers were any more correct about unseen and abstract matters. Being so greatly in error regarding the tangible and observable universe, the Bible cannot be considered a reliable guide for spiritual and ethical issues.
Response: We have already concluded that the Bible is not God’s science book, nature is. The theological views of science from the Bible are just that – human views, not what scripture actually teaches. These views may have been well-intended but were false inferences from scripture. The claim above “In view of the Bible’s numerous mistaken beliefs about the physical world” is a mis-statement. People’s views, not the Bible’s beliefs, were mistaken. So, the claim that the Bible can’t be trusted in non-scientific matters either is unfounded.

K. There are many false prophecies in the Bible

Claim: Prophecies in the Bible further strengthen the Humanist view. Because many of the prophecies turned out to be false, they prove the Bible is not inerrant. The Bible itself contains a test for determining whether a prophecy was inspired by God. Deuteronomy 18:22 explains: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
Applying this test to the Bible leads to one conclusion: the book contains many statements that were not inspired by God.
Old Testament Prophecies
Claim: Genesis 2:17 says the Lord warned Adam and Eve about the fruit contained on the tree of knowledge. He stated: “[I]n the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” According to Genesis chapter 3, however, Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and didn’t die on that day.
Response: They died spiritually when they ate the fruit. Before they ate it disobeying God, they were perfect, sinless and in perfect fellowship with God. Sin broke that fellowship and state of perfection. The consequence was immediate spiritual death and eventual physical death.

Claim: Genesis 35:10 claims that God told Jacob: “[T]hy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name. . ..” But 11 chapters later, the Lord’s own act proved his prediction to be wrong. Genesis 46:2 relates: “God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said, here am I.”
Response: From God Said Jacob Had A New Name. But God Continues To Call Him Jacob (sciencepastor.com) we have this response:
First, this is not a prophecy. It is a declaration (see Genesis 35:10 on the next page). God is not prophesying that Jacob’s name will be changed in the future; He is declaring that Jacob has another name. Since, it is not a prophecy; it cannot be a false prophecy. However, it is still useful to understand what is going on.
What was a name?
In Old Testament times, a name was a description of who a person was. Unlike today when we are given a permanent name at birth, and it takes some legal work to change that name. In Jacob’s day, and in many non-western cultures today, your name could change as you grew older and your character changed.
In the New Testament, for example, go to John 1:42. Simon becomes one of Jesus’ disciples and Jesus gives him a new name, Peter. The name Simon means, “listen” and Peter means “rock.” Peter would eventually become a rock for Jesus. However, it is interesting that towards the end of the gospel of John, in chapter 21 Jesus goes back to calling him “Simon” (listen) instead of Peter.
Why?
Because Simon had denied him three times. He was not a rock. He had denied Jesus three times in fear, even denying Jesus to a lowly servant girl. Jesus used his old name because that is who he was… he was no longer the rock, but someone who needed to listen. Your name described who you were.
However, was this what was going on with the names Jacob and Israel? Why did God give Jacob another name?
Jacob Gets a New Name
God said to him, “Your name is Jacob;
You shall no longer be called Jacob,
But Israel shall be your name.” – Genesis 35:10

What does “Jacob” mean? One definition is “he deceives.” It also means the “supplanter.” Jacob was a twin who was born second. However, he twice deceived (supplanted through deception) his older brother out of his inheritance.
In Genesis 35:10 God changes his name to Israel. What does “Israel” mean? There are a number of ways to translate it to English:
Having power with God
Strives with God
God’s Fighter
This is a name that indicates a man who obeys and trusts God, and as a result has strength and power from God.
So, what about Genesis 46:2, where God calls him Jacob? However, let’s not leave it with just that one instance. In Genesis, after God gives him the name Israel, he is still referred to as Jacob more than 30 times, sometimes being called Jacob and Israel in the same sentence.
Why Use Two Names?
On the surface, the use of both names is an indication that the Lord did not intend for him to never be called Jacob again. “Israel” could be a second name. Possibly, what we would call a “nickname” today. However, that’s’ not how things worked back then. Your name described your character.
It appears Jacob’s character never fully became the character described by the name Israel. So, scripture continues to use both names, reflecting his mixed character.
Scripture does not give us an explanation. However, based on the cultural context, it appears God gave him the name Israel to reflect who he was supposed to be, and who he was most of the time. However, he was not perfect. When he was striving with God, and having power with God, that is the name God used. However, at times he was also a backslider called Jacob.
In addition, it was important that the nation that came from him would be called “Israel.” At that time nations took on the name of their founding leader. God’s purpose was to give him, and eventually the nation of Israel, a name that would be suitable for a national people who were God’s chosen people. Instead of being associated with deceit and the theft of his brother’s blessings, he would be known as “God’s fighter,” or the one who “has power with God.” So even when his birth name was still used, he was also “Israel,” the father of the nation who had power with God.
If his name had not been changed, the Jewish nation would be called Jacobites — the nation of deceivers. That would not do for God’s chosen nation. It would not accurately reflect who they were. With the name change they are known as Israel — God’s fighter, the nation that has power with God. Which do you think better reflects the character of the nation of Israel? The name of Israel!

Conclusion
This was not a prophecy, so there can be no false prophecy. Names in Jacob’s day, and still today in some parts of the world, were not used the way they are in our Western culture. Your name would change as you grew older and changed.

Claim: At II Chronicles 1:12, God promised Solomon: “Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like.”
As Robert Ingersoll pointed out in the nineteenth century, there were several kings in Solomon’s day who could have thrown away the value of Palestine without missing the amount. And the wealth of Solomon has been exceeded by many later kings and is small by today’s standards.

Response: From Was Solomon The Richest Man Ever? What was God’s Promise to Solomon? (sciencepastor.com) again we have this response:
To begin with this is not a prophecy, it is a promise. However, that makes little difference. If God does not keep His promises, He is no God at all. There is no way we could trust Him or know that His promise of eternal life is true. This humanist claim is one we need to take seriously and spend some time examining.
Notice that the promise is only in relationship to other kings. The promise is not that Solomon will be the richest man in all of history. The promise is that he will be the richest king.
Solomon was one of the richest men in history, and his legendary wisdom encompassed money management. To this day, some of the best financial advice ever written is contained in the book of Proverbs. And… in Ecclesiastes, we see the invention and advancement of the widely lauded strategy of financial diversification. – Jim Whiddon, Cross Examined, April 6, 2014
Now the weight of gold which came in to Solomon in one year was 666 talents of gold, besides that from the traders and the wares of the merchants and all the kings of the Arabs and the governors of the country. – 1 Kings 10:14-15 (This is over 1 billion dollars in gold per year, and that was only a small part of his income.)
Keep in mind Solomon started by inheriting David’s wealth, which was significant. Then year after year, his wealth increased.
Here is an interesting question: Do you know of any city where silver and gold are considered as common as stones? This is not just talking about the silver and gold in the king’s palace. During Solomon’s reign “the king made silver and gold as plentiful in Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars as plentiful as sycamores in the lowland.” – 2 Chronicles 1:15
Solomon’s wealth was not just measured in gold and silver. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines. That is, by far, more than any other man in history. The man in second place was Fat’h Ali Shah Qajar the second Qajar of Persia. He had about 158 wives, about one-quarter the number Solomon had. Each of Solomon’s wives represented an alliance with another king, and each alliance brought him significant income. Solomon was not into militarily capturing territory, but the number of wives he had indicates that his “rule” extended over a vast area. With his wisdom, his “empire management” was probably more efficient and profitable than any empire before or after
How is Wealth Defined?
Solomon was the wisest man in all of the world. Other kings, and prominent people came bringing huge volumes of fabulous gifts and to seek his wisdom. Financially his wisdom brought him great wealth, on top of his other sources of income. This was a huge income stream no other monarch has ever had. However, the wisdom of Solomon was also a great gift in itself, vastly enriching his life.
However, we do not really know how physically rich Solomon was. There are no records giving an accounting of his income, nor all that he owned. We simply do not know.
Making an estimate of his financial wealth, the Wealth Result ranked Solomon as the richest man of all time. And Practical Business Ideas ranks him in the top ten wealthiest men, and the wealthiest king of all time. Others rank Solomon lower, but always in the top ten richest men and always as the wealthiest king.
Robert Ingersoll
The Humanists call on Robert Ingersoll to support their claim. Who was Robert Ingersoll?
He was a 19th century attorney and politician noted for his defense of agnosticism. I have the “Interviews” book the humanist references. Here is the referenced Ingersoll quote:
Is it scientific to say that Solomon made gold and silver at Jerusalem as plentiful as stones, when we know that there were kings in his day who could have thrown away the value of the whole of Palestine without missing the amount?
This quote comes from a 50 plus page answer to a question presented to Ingersoll: “Mr. Talmage insists that the Bible is scientific and that the real scientific man sees no contradiction between revelation and science, that on the contrary, they are in harmony. What is your understanding of the matter?” – Interviews, page 209
To refute the claim that the Bible is scientifically sound, in his letter Ingersoll rattles off accusation after accusation, writing, “Is it scientific to say…” over and over again, with no details, and no sources or references to support his claims. Ingersoll is just throwing out words. The claim the humanists make here is composed of words pulled out of thin air. I suppose they assumed no one would look it up.
Conclusion
No one truly knows how wealthy Solomon was. I cannot prove that Solomon had more riches, wealth and honor than any other king. Nor can the humanists prove there were other kings who had more wealth. History simply does not provide this information. It is a clever trick to propose an unanswerable question. Although this is an interesting question, it is of no value.

Claim: Isaiah 17:1-2 prophesies that Damascus would cease to be a city, become a heap of ruins, and remain forever desolate. Yet some 27 centuries after the prediction was made, Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world and is still going strong.

Response: The prophesy does not say that Damascus will be destroyed forever. Damascus was destroyed by the Assyrians in 732 B.C. It was made into a heap of ruins. It ceased to be a city… for a while. It was destroyed – that is what the prophecy said would happen, so the prophesy was not false.

Claim: Jeremiah 25:11 predicts the Jews would be captives in Babylon for 70 years, and II Chronicles 36:20-21 views the prophecy as fulfilled. But the Jews were taken into captivity by the Chaldeans when Jerusalem fell in 586 B.C.E. And Cyrus of Persia issued an order in 538 B.C.E. allowing them to return from Babylon to Judah. Thus, the Babylonian captivity lasted about 48 years.[50]

Response: From Humanists Say The Babylonian Captivity Was 48 Years? Huh? (sciencepastor.com) we have the response:
“What does the prophecy specifically say?”
“This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,” declares the Lord, “for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation. – Jeremiah 25:11-12”

“The prophecy is that the Jews (and the nations around them) will SERVE the king of Babylon seventy years. In other words, they will be under the rule of Babylon. For most of that time many Jews will be in captivity in Babylon. However, for part of the time a large number of Jews will remain in Jerusalem and Palestine under the rule of Babylon… serving the king of Babylon while still living in their homes.”
“So when did the land of Judah begin to serve the king of Babylon? It turns out the Jews are rather stubborn people and they did not like being ruled by Babylon, so the Babylonian armies had to return three times. Here is a brief time line:
607 BC* – King Jehoiakim becomes a servant of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon
604 BC – The Jews rebel. Nebuchadnezzar sends armies to defeat Jerusalem and he takes captives back to Babylon. This is when Daniel is taken captive.
597 BC – Jerusalem rebels again, Nebuchadnezzar sends another army, captures Jerusalem and deports many more Jews to Babylon
588-586 BC – Jerusalem rebels again, Nebuchadnezzar sends another army, lays siege to Jerusalem, totally destroys Jerusalem and deports just about everyone to Babylon, leaving a few of the very poorest Jews.”
“The humanists are saying the Jews became captives of Babylon when Jerusalem fell for the third time in about 586 BC. However, that is not when they began to serve the king of Babylon. That happened in 607 BC and is described in 2 Kings 24:”
“In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; – 2 Kings 24:1”

“Jehoiakim began serving the king of Babylon in 607 BC. The time of servitude was 607 to 537 BC… a total of 70 years. This time period has come to be called the “Babylonian Captivity,” implying all 70 years were spent as captives in Babylon. However, that is not what scripture says. For part of the time of “captivity”, many Jews were still in Jerusalem. If they had not rebelled against God and the Babylonians, they might have spent all of the “Babylonia captivity” in Jerusalem serving the king of Babylon there.”
“Conclusion: When we read what was written, that the Jews were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years, the prophecy was perfectly and exactly fulfilled.”

Claim: Examples of other unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies include the following: the Jews will occupy the land from the Nile to the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18); they shall never lose their land and shall be disturbed no more (II Samuel 7:10); King David’s throne and kingdom shall be established forever (II Samuel 7:16); no uncircumcised person will ever enter Jerusalem (Isaiah 52:1); and the waters of Egypt will dry up (Isaiah 19:5-7).

Response: Here is an excellent response/explanation from Humanists Got It Right. These Prophecies Have Not Been Fulfilled! (sciencepastor.com): The humanist claim that some of the Old Testament prophecies have not been fulfilled… and they are right. After all, the end has not yet come. About one-third of the prophecies in the Bible are about our future. The book of Revelation, for example, is filled with prophecies that reveal what is still yet to come for us.
Let’s look at each of these new examples the humanists have listed and find out what each of them is about:
Genesis 15:18
On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates.”
Most Bible scholars say this prophecy is about our future. It will be fulfilled when Jesus returns at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom. It could be that we are seeing it being fulfilled now. Some of the land already belongs to the descendants of Abraham, but they have not yet taken possession of all the land.
If you own a rental property, you may have had some experience with this situation. Once someone is living in your property (in some cases even if they are not paying rent), it can be very difficult to get them out. Laws vary by state, but in some locations, it can take years. They may be trashing your property, and still you cannot get them out. That describes Israel’s situation. They own the property, but they cannot yet take possession of the property. However, the time is coming when this prophecy will be 100% fulfilled.

2 Samuel 7:8-10
8 & 9: “Now therefore, thus you shall say to My servant David, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth.
10: I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly,”
11: even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. The Lord also declares to you that the Lord will make a house for you. When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers,
I have included verse 11 (and 12-16 below) so you can see the context. In these verses, God is speaking to David through Nathan the prophet. This section of scripture is often called “God’s Covenant with David” or the “Davidic Covenant.” This covenant is also summarized in 1 Chronicles 17:11–14 and 2 Chronicles 6:16.
As with our look at 2 Chronicles 1:12, this is not a prophecy, but a promise. God, through the prophet Nathan, is telling David what He will do. However, we need to look at the humanists’ accusation concerning this section of scripture. If God does not keep His promises to David, then we cannot trust anything God says.
God starts with some background. Verses 8 & 9 describe some of the things God has done in the past. The verse we are looking at, verse 10, is a reaffirmation of God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18. That means the answer is the same as for Genesis 15:18 above, this prophecy will be fulfilled in the future.
2 Samuel 7:16
“Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.”
This is a promise of a Messiah… a descendant of David who will establish His kingdom and rule forever. That is what Jesus Christ will do when He returns. The fulfillment of this promise is still in the future, but it is coming.
Isaiah 52:1
Awake, awake,
Clothe yourself in your strength, O Zion;
Clothe yourself in your beautiful garments,
O Jerusalem, the holy city;
For the uncircumcised and the unclean
Will no longer come into you.
This is part of a speech (prophecy) God gives to Israel that starts in verse 40. Throughout chapter 52 there are many imperatives, rhetorical questions, and allusions to what God said previously, going all the way back to chapter 40. The imperatives include calls to listen, to awake, to look, and to depart.
In verse 52:1 God is calling for the people pay attention… AWAKE!
Go back a little further, beginning in chapter 51 God is talking about Israel’s transformation from desolation into a paradise. In 51:6 God talks about the heavens vanishing… and the earth growing old. This sets the stage for a new heaven and new earth following the return of Christ. God’s point is that the people of Israel have no need to despair.
Then, the last part of chapter 51 reflects on the unfaithfulness of Israel in the past; how they have experienced the Lord’s anger; and that the city of Jerusalem has suffered. Nevertheless, be encouraged Israel, all of that will change.
Now the good news starting in the chapter we are looking at: awake Israel! Put on your fine clothes of honor provided by the Lord… you will be safe and secure from invaders (the uncircumcised and unclean will no longer come into you).
As with the previous prophecy we looked at, this is a prophecy about the 2nd coming of Christ. A prophecy that will be fulfilled when He returns.
Isaiah 19:5-7
The waters from the sea will dry up,
And the river will be parched and dry.
The canals will emit a stench,
The streams of Egypt will thin out and dry up;
The reeds and rushes will rot away.
The bulrushes by the Nile, by the edge of the Nile
And all the sown fields by the Nile
Will become dry, be driven away, and be no more.

This is part of a larger section of scripture in which God is describing what will happen to various nations. Isaiah 19:1 through 20:6 talks about Egypt. This is an amazing prophecy. It describes what God will do, including inciting the Egyptians to fight against Egyptians. However, in the end Egypt will repent and convert, and through God’s grace become a part of Israel. That is amazing!
This entire section of prophecy is still future. The humanists are right, it has not been fulfilled, but it will be as the return of Jesus Christ draws near.
Conclusion: The humanists are right. There are some prophecies in the Bible that have not been fulfilled… because they describe a time that is still in our future… the time when Jesus Christ will return and establish His kingdom forever.

Claim: New Testament Prophecies:
In applying the Bible’s test for identifying false prophets, the conclusion is inescapable that Jesus was one of them. For example, he was wrong in predicting the world would end within the lifetime of his followers. At Matthew 16:28, Jesus tells his disciples: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” The people who were standing there all died eventually, and they never saw Jesus’ return to establish a kingdom.
Response: Jesus was not referring to His 2nd coming but to His transfiguration, which occurred soon after He made this statement. Peter, James, and John witnessed the transfiguration, which is described in the following scripture: “After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus. “Matthew 17:1-8

So, Jesus’ prediction was true.

Claim: Similarly, Jesus is depicted at Mark 13:24-30 as listing signs that shall accompany the end of the world. These include the sun becoming darkened, the moon not giving any light, the stars of heaven falling, the son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory, and angels gathering the elect. Then Jesus announces: “Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.” His generation passed away long ago without the predicted events occurring.
Response: “This generation” in the original language could mean “this age”, which in scripture refers to the period from Christ’s ascension until His return. “All these things” are prophesied to occur just before Jesus’ 2nd coming. The prophesy remains to be fulfilled.

Claim: Jesus also erred in predicting the amount of time he would be in the tomb. At Matthew 12:40 he teaches: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so, shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Mark 15:42-45 shows that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon. But Mark 16:9 and Matthew 28:1 tell us he left the tomb sometime on Saturday night or Sunday morning. Either way, the amount of time was less than three nights.
Response: In Jewish custom of the time, part of a day was counted as a day. He was in the grave part of the day Friday, all day Saturday, and part of the day Sunday – three days, and part of the night Friday, all night Saturday, and part of the night Sunday AM – three nights. His prediction was accurate.

Claim: Another significant false prophecy is at John 14:13-14. Jesus promises: “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” Everyone knows there have been millions of instances where Jesus failed to respond to Christians who asked for things in his name. And the graveyards are full of people who prayed to him for health.
Response: From Asking In The Name Of Jesus – Does It Work? (sciencepastor.com) we have this answer: “It should be immediately apparent that what the humanists say is not true. Jesus is not a magic genie who grants your every wish. Just imagine, if everyone could wish for whatever they wanted, and Jesus granted every one of them. What a chaotic world we would have. It would be a mess! So, what did Jesus actually mean?”
“To do something in the name of someone means to do what they would have done. For example, if a messenger proclaims, “In the name of the king, everyone is to have a day off.” What does that mean? That the king wants everyone to have a day off, and he is giving them the day off. The messenger is speaking as a representative of the king. His words are the king’s words and are to be obeyed just as if the messenger was the king.”
“To ask in the name of Jesus, is to speak as a representative of Jesus, asking for what He would want. That is actually a good thing, because what He wants is what is good and perfect.”

What Does Jesus Want?
“The Lord’s Prayer gives us an example of what we should want and how we should pray. (Matthew 6:9-13).
Pray, then, in this way:
“Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
‘Your kingdom come.
Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
‘Give us this day our daily bread.
‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
[For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]”

“What does Jesus want? What should we want? For what should we be praying? The answer to all three is the same. First, our prayers should focus on God and glorifying God. Pray that God will be honored and His kingdom will come. Then pray that what God wants will be done, everywhere and all the time.”
“Secondly, we can address our needs. Praying for our daily bread means to pray for, and trust God to provide for all our needs. Notice this is not wants… it is our needs. Then pray that God helps us to forgive those who sin against us, and that He helps us to avoid sin.”
Conclusion: I would conclude this way: Once we understand what “in His name” means, this promise becomes clear. It has nothing to do with what the humanists say (having our wishes granted), and everything to do with honoring Jesus and praying for His will to be done, i.e. for what He would want.

L. Other problems with the Bible

Claims: There are other reasons why the Bible should not be considered the word of God. They include, but are not limited to: the fact that we don’t know who wrote most of it; the fact that much of it was written many years – and in some cases many centuries – after the events it purports to describe; its obscene passages; and its promises of eternal rewards for the ignorant and credulous and everlasting punishment for skeptics and investigators.
Finally, the harm that the Bible causes in people’s personal lives should be mentioned as a reason for rejecting the book. It’s not uncommon to see media reports about Bible believers committing bizarre, injurious, and sometimes deadly acts.
Some people use Bible verses to justify beating children, withholding medical treatment, handling snakes, drinking poison, chopping off body parts, plucking out eyes, driving out demons, withdrawing from the affairs of this world, renouncing the pleasures of life, and expecting the world to end. If the Bible were not viewed as God’s word, these acts would occur much less often.
Response: From Summary – Is The Bible Harmful As Humanists Say? (sciencepastor.com) we have the following response:
Let’s take a look at some of the accusations in this summary statement.
Claim: We Do Not Know Who Wrote Most of the Bible
Response: Not true. We know all of the authors of the New Testament, except for the book of Hebrews. Looking at the Old Testament Moses wrote the Pentateuch (the first five books of the bible). The writers of many of the historical books, and all of the prophetic books are identified in the name of the book. David wrote most of the Psalms. Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes and most of the proverbs. The only books for which the author is not specifically identified are a few of the Old Testament historical books. We know who the human authors were for most of the Bible.
Claim: The Bible Was Written Years after the Events It Reports
Response: This topic was covered under textual criticism above.
Claim: Obscene Passages
Response: It would have been helpful if the humanists had provided some examples. I have no idea which passages they consider obscene. In addition, what standard do they use to determine whether something is obscene or not? Who establishes that standard? Does the standard ever change?

Claim: It’s Promises of Eternal Rewards for the Ignorant and Credulous and Everlasting Punishment for Skeptics and Investigators.
Response: “Here we have a major misrepresentation of what scripture says about eternity. First, notice the language they use. Those who believe scripture are ignorant and credulous (definition: showing too great a readiness to believe things). That is negative, inappropriate, and a false description of a believer. Humanists are described as simply skeptics and investigators… a rather positive description. However, that is not what scripture says. They are blind enemies of God; whose desire is to be separated from God. They desire the darkness and love their sin. Therefore, God gives them what they desire. There is nothing wrong with that. If you deny God, essentially saying you want nothing to do with God, then God gives you exactly what you want—total separation from God forever—perfect justice.”
“I have talked with many humanists. I am sure there are some out there, but I have yet to meet one who is truly a skeptic or investigator. An investigator is someone who is searching for truth and examining all sides of an issue. That does not describe a humanist. I have an offer I have made to many of the humanists I have met. For every book you will read (and discuss with me) that I recommend, I will read (and discuss with you) a book you recommend. Nearly all rejected the offer. Of the few that have accepted, none read the book I recommended… although I have purchased and read the books they recommended. As scripture says, they are suppressing their knowledge of God. God tells you this in Romans 1:18-31: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.””

Humanists may be skeptics, but they are not investigators – they close their minds to the possibility of God and the truth of the Gospel. This is willful ignorance leaving them vulnerable to the day of judgment. Does that mean we do not share the gospel with humanists? Of course not. The Holy Spirit can open minds and bring the light of truth to a closed mind.”
What does God want for all? To repent of their sin and trust in Jesus’ payment on the cross for forgiveness of their sins resulting in a changed, more abundant life, peace with God, and assurance of heaven. That’s the promise for everyone who repents and believes. For believers, at the judgment. God will say “Your sin debt was paid by my appointed Savior – Jesus. Welcome to heaven.”
Note: The orange words are mine (Dennis) and not the science pastor’s.
Claim/response: The Humanist said: Some people use Bible verses to justify:
– Beating children: in violation of what the Bible teaches
– Withholding medical treatment: in violation of what the Bible teaches
– Handling snakes: in violation of what the Bible teaches
– Drinking poison: in violation of what the Bible teaches
– Chopping off body parts: in violation of what the Bible teaches
– Plucking out eyes: in violation of what the Bible teaches
– Driving out demons: demon possession is real, but we don’t have the power to drive out demons
– Withdrawing from the affairs of this world: in violation of what the Bible teaches
– Renouncing the pleasures of life: it depends on what you define as “the pleasures of this life.” Drinking is a good example. The Bible does not forbid drinking. Enjoying a glass of wine (or beer) is fine. Getting drunk is not.
– Expecting the world to end: Yes, it will. Humanists accuse God of being unable or unwilling to end evil. But He will end evil, and that means this world will come to an end and all “second” chances to repent and trust in Him as your Savior will end also.
Yes, there are people who use the Bible to justify behaviors that result from human desires [or misinterpret what the Bible teaches]. However, as you see from the above list, those behaviors violate what the Bible teaches. Just because someone claims to be a Christian and then engages in certain behaviors, that does not mean those practices are Biblical. Neither the behavior of true Christians, nor that of false Christians, defines what the Bible teaches.

Claim: If the Bible were not viewed as God’s word, these acts would occur much less often.
Response: Not true. If the Bible were more often viewed as God’s word, and obeyed as written, these acts would not occur. Nearly everything on the humanist’s list is a violation of Biblical teaching. In addition, if the Bible were more often viewed as God’s word and obeyed, we’d see fewer single mothers (and the resulting poverty); fewer suicides; less crime; few gender identity problems; fewer riots and disorder; and the list goes on.
Conclusion: The Bible is true, accurate, without error, and a major benefit to humanity.

Claim: Conclusion: Many compelling and morally sound reasons support the Humanist position that the Bible is not divinely inspired. Instead of being inerrant, the Bible has far more errors and immoral teachings than most other books. By treating this mistake-ridden book as the word of God, humanity has been led down many paths of error and misery throughout history. In too many ways, the Bible continues to produce such results.
But in some cases, the errors caused by the Bible have been corrected and the harms have been stopped. This happened when a scientific approach was applied to problems. Science involves relying on reason, observation, experience, and compassion – rather than blindly accepting religious or secular dogma. We should reject the views of those who say the Bible has infallible answers to today’s problems. As Humanists know, science has proved to be a much better source for answers.

Response: From Summary – Humanists Have Their Final Word (sciencepastor.com) we have this response: The humanists conclude by drawing conclusions based on the “evidence” they have presented. The problem is… all of their evidence has been proven false. What does that mean? Simply that, based on the evidence presented, their conclusions are false. Let’s look at each of these final statements:
Claim: Many compelling and morally sound reasons support the Humanist position that the Bible is not divinely inspired…
Answer: I do not see how they can be compelling reasons, if they have been shown to be false. HOWEVER, let’s go ahead and look at this statement.
Before we can declare something morally sound or unsound, we need to know the humanist’s basis for morality. (see the appendix). Their web site declares that morality will naturally arise from human societies. What does that say about the source of morality? Nothing. What are the mechanisms though which morality arises from human societies? Their answer appears to be, whatever works is what is moral. That is no answer. It just takes us around in a circle.
The “conclusion” that morals arise from human society has no basis in reality. That would mean whatever we decide we want to do, is moral and right to do. Hmmm. However, let’s continue.
If morality arises from human society, that means various societies, …, can have various and conflicting morality. How does that work? If my [society or country] believes holding 11-year-old girls in sexual slavery is acceptable, [no other country or society] could tell them they are wrong? [According to humanism, one country or society] has no basis for telling another … that child sexual slavery is wrong. So much for human rights!
Since humanists have no rational basis for morality, a statement claiming they have morally sound reasons demonstrating the Bible is not divinely inspired is not a valid statement. It is nothing more than a human opinion. The humanist position, that the Bible is not divinely inspired, is not based on compelling reasons, nor sound moral reasons. It is just [presumptuous] or wishful thinking, [the latter] based on a desire to not be accountable to their creator God.
Claim: Instead of being inerrant, the Bible has far more errors and immoral teachings than most other books.
Answer: The humanists were unable to demonstrate even one error or immoral teaching in the Bible. Therefore, this is a false statement. Not only that, in order to make this claim they rely on deceptive “authorities” (mainly Andrew White), taking scripture out of context, and forcing meanings onto scripture that do not exist. They are the ones in error, not scripture.
Claim: By treating this mistake-ridden book as the word of God, humanity has been led down many paths of error and misery throughout history. In too many ways, the Bible continues to produce such results.
Answer: The conclusion in this statement is based on the assertion that the Bible is filled with mistakes, which has been proven false. Therefore, the assertion that the Bible has led people into error is false.
In addition, the humanists have not shown that following the teachings of the Bible lead to misery. The examples they brought up included:
A) Unsanitary conditions and disease, which was shown to be a false assertion.
B) Hindering of the advancement of science, which also was shown to be false.
Following the teaching of the Bible, as the Jews did during the plague, resulted in sanitary conditions and greater freedom from disease. And it was because of Christianity that science exploded and made huge advances in Europe.
Claim: But in some cases, the errors caused by the Bible have been corrected and the harms have been stopped. This happened when a scientific approach was applied to problems.
Answer: The evidence does not support this statement. The facts are that the “harm” is more descriptive of science than Christianity. The Bible described the best methods for preventing the spread of disease and sickness thousands of years before science “discovered” them. In addition, even today in the era of COVID and in the name of “science”, we continue to ignore the practices the Bible prescribes, and people are dying.
I’ll repeat the facts again… the claim that there are errors in the Bible has been 100% refuted.
Secondly, science has never corrected any teaching of the Bible. The Bible stands unique in this respect. It has never needed correction. Science, on the other hand, constantly needs correction and updating. For example, it was a secular “scientific” belief in bleeding people that led to the death of George Washington, as well as many others. Some of the scientific facts of the past include:
Rain Follows the Plow – a climatology theory that said human settlement caused a permanent increase in rainfall. This encouraged people to move to arid areas, prompting the settlement of the American Great Plains, and resulting in the misery and hunger that followed when farms failed.
Eugenics – simply put, eugenics was a direct result of the rise of the theory of evolution. This scientific principle involves killing people to improve the human race. Here is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says:
The selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow “the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.
In America eugenics continues today through its most successful practitioner, Planned Parenthood. Thank you, evolutionary science!
Infanticide did not go out of fashion with the advance from savagery to barbarism and civilization. Rather, it became, as in Greece and Rome, a recognized custom with advocates among leaders of thought and action. — Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), Woman and the New Race
Learn more. Read a recent National Review article about Planned Parenthood titled: “It is functioning today as its eugenics-obsessed founders intended.”
The Four Humors – this is the belief that the body contained four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. These had to be in the right balance for a person to be healthy. This belief led to practices such as bloodletting, emetics, and purges.
Thank you, “science”, for these wonderful advances that brought health and happiness to the human race (he said with sarcasm). And these are just the tip of the iceberg. Read more on ListVerse. For thousands of years before they were discovered, and during the times these practices were (and still are) used, the Bible never changed. It continued to state that sanitation, hygiene, and quarantine were the appropriate measures to use. It described the hydrologic cycle, which explains rainfall, in Job in a way that is accurate and unchanged today.
It is “science,” not the Bible that has caused misery and that continually needs correcting.
BTW, science is not evil nor immoral. It is just a method for investigating the world around us. When used properly, and in accordance with Biblical teaching, science brings major benefits to mankind. My background is in science and engineering. I love science! However, used in opposition to Biblical teaching, science typically brings misery, pain, and death.”
IV. Conclusion:
We have shown in this paper that every claim that the Bible is unreliable, inaccurate, has contradictions, and cannot be trusted has proven to be unfounded or false. The claim that “everything in the Bible can be debunked” is false. Those who say it have either not done the work necessary to investigate the facts and have taken someone’s word for it, or they don’t believe in God or Jesus and try to discredit the Bible, which affirms God’s existence.
You can trust the Bible as the perfect guide to your life, for loving God, and for loving others. You can trust the Bible to solve your greatest problem. That problem is sin… disobeying God. Your conscience even informs you that you have done wrong. How many lies have you told? How many things have you taken that did not belong to you? Coveting, including desiring someone other than your spouse. Using God’s name to curse (blasphemy). You’ve broken many, if not all of God’s laws and face the just punishment. Jesus is offering to take your punishment on Himself. Will you accept this free gift He is offering?

Note: Where [orange words in brackets] are used, these are my own (Dennis) choices of words replacing the science pastor’s.

AN APOLOGETIC RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS CONCERNING THE HISTORICAL TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY DR. KEVIN MAXWELL
One of the common objections to the Christian faith comes in the form of doubts concerning the historical truth of Christianity. Defending the historicity of the Christian faith should not be seen in a negative light. The ability to prove historically the claims of Christianity is actually one of the strengths of Christianity. We should never recoil from the opportunity to defend our faith when there is so much supportive evidence to share.
There have been ample scholarly books published that bring into question the historical truths of Christianity. They provide a number of opportunities for the Christian apologist to dispense with those objections. This apologetic response paper will look at some of the objections brought up in Michael Martin’s book, The Case Against Christianity, and will offer an apologetic defense for each objection. This will enable the reader to better evaluate the evidence for himself and make an educated decision based on the evidential support.
This response paper will address two main issues. The first is the historicity of Jesus Himself. What is being questioned by Martin is the existence of a historical figure which we know of as Jesus Christ. It is true that most scholars do not deny the historical existence of Jesus Christ but choose to criticize some aspect of His teaching or the writings which speak of Him. Martin, however, questions the very existence of Jesus Christ. If Martin were to be able to prove that Jesus Christ was not a true historical figure then that would call into question every teaching associated with and dependent on the historical figure Jesus. The historical truth of Christianity would lose its foundation because everything in Christianity is centered on the message of Jesus Christ. Debunk the messenger and destroy the message. The approach taken is to discredit the internal integrity of the gospels and their writers. If it can be shown that the writers were not honest in their pursuit and transmission of the truth then that calls into question the message they were presenting.
The second issue that will be addressed will flow from the conclusion of the first. If Jesus can be shown to have been a true historical figure, then we must assess His claims concerning His identity. The most direct way is to investigate the claims of His resurrection. Jesus’ teachings center on His message concerning salvation and the process by which this salvation would come to fruition. His miracles were used as validation of His claims to deity. His message presented a hope or redemption that would take place as He fulfilled His role as Messiah. That role was not one of political salvation but one of spiritual redemption and reconciliation of God to man. This would take place by an atoning for sin which could only take place by one who fulfilled the requirements that the Law demanded. This one as Jesus taught would be God Himself paying the price and redeeming man from his sin. Jesus was claiming to be God. It is this claim that must be evaluated. Did Jesus through his death and resurrection show evidence that he was the Son of God? Debunk the resurrection and the whole of Jesus’ claims and message collapses.
Martin appeals to a scholar by the name of G.A. Wells. Wells bases his objections on the views of a number of Christian theologians who state that the gospels were written by unknown authors who did not personally know Jesus and who wrote some forty to eighty years after Jesus’ supposed lifetime. He also states that a lot of the material is legend and that the writers of these gospels were influenced in what they wrote by their own theological motives. Since the writers were influenced, according to Wells, by their own motives, the only way to validate the information is by an appeal to other independent sources. What Wells is implying is that the gospels are called into question because they cannot be verified by any sources outside of Christian sources and the writers of these gospels are suspect.
In the case of the dating of the gospels, a later dating implies that the writings are too far removed from the event time frames as given in the writings. Other writers such as Paul do not mention the life of Christ in a way that shows that he was aware of events that supposedly occurred in the first century time frame given for Jesus. Martin states that, “It seems likely then that Paul simply did not know what Jesus was supposed to have taught according to the Gospels.” What Wells and Martin seem to be implying is that if Jesus was a first century individual then why is there silence from those Christian writers that wrote prior to the gospels? Wells states that this all makes more sense “if we accept that his earthly life in the 1st-century Palestine was invented late in the 1st century.”
What this objection implies is that writers such as Paul who wrote prior to the writing of the gospels gave no evidence that they knew anything of the teachings of Jesus. The gospel stories, which were the foundational stories of the life of Jesus, are portrayed by Wells as a myth of later invention. The question then becomes, what is the origin of the early writers’ belief in the existence of Jesus? The answer offered by Wells is that Jewish Wisdom literature would have provided the inspiration for many of the aspects of the Christian faith.
Wells uses the Jewish Wisdom literature as a way of casting doubt on the existence of a historical Jesus. Wells says that there are stories of holy men being crucified in Palestine during the first and second century B.C. The Talmud itself speaks of Jesus living in the second century B.C. What Wells alludes to is that the idea of Jesus was interpolated from earlier literature and transmitted as a legend borrowing source material from early Jewish literature. The end result is a transmission within the gospels that is not based on facts but on legends.
How could an entire Christian community form around such confusion? Wells contributes this to the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews. He states that under these circumstances it would have been difficult to obtain accurate information about what took place in the early first century. The writing in the gospels would have been a collection of legend, speculations, and assumptions. If Wells is correct then this would cast great doubt on the entire Christian faith.
In order to answer these objections, we must investigate whether there is support for an earlier writing of the gospels, whether authors such as Paul seemed to have a clear understanding of the teachings concerning Jesus, and whether there is support for the objection that Jesus is simply a legend extrapolated from previous Jewish literature.
Wells gives a dating of the gospels to some forty to eighty years after the supposed life of Christ. As stated earlier, he also said they were written by unknown authors who did not personally know Jesus. If it could be shown that the gospels have an earlier dating and that some were written by eyewitnesses, then that would call into question Wells’ position. There are many scholars who provide evidence for an early dating of the gospels. It is clear from internal evidence that an event such as the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is not mentioned in the gospels. Norman Geisler states that “if you and your fellow-followers write accounts of Jesus after the temple and city were destroyed in A.D. 70, aren’t you going to at least mention that…tragedy.” The gospels are a recounting of the life and teachings of Christ. Christ prophecies the destruction of Jerusalem prior to his death. If this event had taken place already by the writing of the gospels, they would have been recorded as fulfilled. Such an event would certainly have been newsworthy.
Another key point to consider is the writing of the Book of Acts. The book of Acts ends with Paul awaiting his fate in Rome. According to Clement of Rome, Paul was executed under Nero. Nero’s reign ended in A.D. 68. We also know from Josephus that James was killed in A.D. 62. This places the dating of Acts before 62. If we know the dating of Acts then we can use internal evidence from Acts to show that the gospel of Luke would have been written prior to this A.D. 62 dating. Acts 1:1 refers to a previous letter written to a certain Theophilus. The gospel of Luke begins with a reference to this same Theophilus. This would place the gospel of Luke prior to Acts and gives a dating before A.D. 62.
The gospel of Mark is considered to be the earliest of the gospels since Luke says he got some of his material from other eyewitness sources. Mark is considered by many to be one of these sources. Luke 1:1-2 states, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.” This implies that eyewitness sources were investigated to provide the source material for Luke. Since there are many similarities in the gospels of Mark and Luke, Mark is considered to be one of those sources. This would allow for an even earlier dating than A.D. 62 for Mark. Geisler refers us also to the Dead Sea Scroll fragments of Mark that date from A.D. 50-70.
Geisler presents a list of over fifteen pieces of evidence that point to an early dating for Acts. As stated earlier, if Acts has an early date, then the gospel of Luke would have an even earlier date since it is written by the same author and addressed to the same individual, Theophilus. Among those evidences are no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, no evidence of weakening relationship between Christians and Rome under Nero in the late 60’s, no mention of the death of James in 62 A.D., the tone of Acts does not seem to imply that it is being written in the persecution times of Nero and there is a presence of Gentile converts to Judaism which was not present in the latter days of the Neronian persecution. These few examples provide ample support for an early dating of Acts and subsequently the gospels.
This all means that the gospels would have been written well within the lifetime of actual eyewitnesses that could have refuted any incorrect data concerning the events of Jesus’ life. It is highly unlikely that a legend could have been formed in such a short period of time and without serious objections from contemporaries of Jesus. This severely threatens Wells’ argument.
Now concerning the lack of individuals such as Paul to address specifics concerning the teachings of Jesus, the following response is given. Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson tackle this issue in their book Evidence for the Historical Jesus. They offer the following response to Wells. Paul’s intent was not to communicate historical information concerning Jesus because he was aware that this was already underway by individuals much more qualified than himself. He did visit Peter and others and his ministry was confirmed by them. He was concentrating on the resurrected Jesus and the response that the Christian life must take towards Him. Scripture does say that Paul openly admits, “I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12). Paul is referencing the gospel message. The fact that it was affirmed by other apostles in Jerusalem shows that the message of Paul was complete in its doctrinal message or the apostles would not have confirmed it.
Another problem with Wells’ argument addresses his statements concerning the lack of Pauline referencing of the teachings of Jesus. Wells teaches that this implies that Paul knew nothing about any such lessons or teachings. McDowell states that when Paul addresses the Corinthians in the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper, he uses the rabbinic practice of using terms such as “receiving and delivering of a sacred trust.” Paul was transmitting information that had been given to him by direct revelation from Christ. He did so not as in the transmitting of some legend or folklore, but in transmitting a sacred trust.” Just because Paul states that he received his message not from man but from Jesus Himself, this does not imply that he refused to consult other sources.
There are pre-Pauline creeds and hymns included in Paul’s writings. Examples are Romans 1:3,4; 1 Corinthians 11:23ff; Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-18; 1 Timothy 3:16. They predate Paul’s writings and address issues concerning the deity and resurrection of Jesus. These creeds date then from 33 to 48 A.D. Paul’s use of such creeds and hymns helps solidify the historical basis of his referencing of Jesus. He does not present himself as someone who knows little of Jesus as Wells suggest. His letters reveal a teacher relating the truths of Jesus using personally received revelations, eyewitness confirmations, and creeds predating his own writing. McDowell closes his argument by quoting Moreland “the idea of a fully divine, miracle- working Jesus who rose from the dead was present during the first decade of Christianity. Such a view was not a legend which arose several decades after the crucifixion.”
One last compelling thought from McDowell is in reference to a creed 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Paul adds to the end of that creed the following statement, “…most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:6). He is referring to witnesses of the events of Jesus’ life. No one apparently oblivious to any events concerning a first century Jesus would include such a statement. It is too easy to verify facts when eyewitnesses are still able to be consulted. Paul’s inclusion of this statement portrays an intentional desire that anyone debating the authenticity of his historical records could simply inquire of those still alive concerning these events.
Other New Testament writers also address the issue that the message they preached and wrote about was not one that was made up but was eye-witnessed or was orally received from contemporaries of Jesus.
Luke 1:1-3; “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus” (Lk 1:1-3 NIV). Luke here mentions the fact that these accounts were handed down to him by eyewitnesses. Luke acted as a reporter looking for primary sources as his support for what he was writing.
2 Peter 1:16; “For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pt. 1:16 NIV). Peter seems to be offering an apologetic defense against any who would claim that the teachings concerning Jesus were merely legends or made-up stories.
1 John 1:3; “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:3). John claims here a direct eyewitness account of the events surrounding Jesus Christ.
John 19:35; “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe” (Jn. 19:35). John understands the human need for evidence to support faith. He is not asking us to believe without evidence. He testifies of that truth so that others may believe.
In conclusion, it is obvious that Paul knew of a man named Jesus who lived in the first century A.D. The gospel letters are not to be dated after 70 A.D. and into the second century A.D. There is ample internal evidence that speaks against such a dating. This disallows the possibility that the facts concerning Jesus were a later interpretation from earlier Jewish literature and mere legend. They represent factual historical information that was easily verifiable by eyewitnesses that were still alive and could quickly identify and attempt to halt any doctrinal or historical teachings contrary to the facts. Also, internal evidence speaks to other New Testament writers stressing that their information was from reliable sources, either eye witnessed or received by contemporaries of the events.
In addition to the internal evidence, there is external evidence that speaks of the historical truths concerning the existence of a man named Jesus Christ. Martin discredits some of the external references to Jesus from historical sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, the Talmud, and others. Josephus references the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and also a Jesus’ name is referenced as the brother of James in his work Antiquities of the Jews. Martin believes this to be a Christian interpolation because it does not seem to fit with the context of the writing or with the worldview perspective of the author. Martin also questions why only two references by Josephus if he really was so important to Jewish history. Most scholars do accept the James passage because it is “too non-committal” to have been a later Christian interpolation. Origen also refers to this statement as well which dates it before A.D. 200.
McDowell states that “Most scholars agree on one other point concerning Josephus’ reference to Jesus in conjunction with James. Winter puts it: ‘If …Josephus referred to James as being ‘the brother of Jesus who is called Christ’, without more ado, we have to assume that in an earlier passage he had already told his readers about Jesus himself.’” This seems to make logical sense. Had Josephus not have mentioned more specifics concerning Jesus at a previous time in his writing, he certainly would have provided more of an introduction to identify this Jesus. Jesus was a common name so clarity would have been needed. It adds to the likelihood that the passage concerning the Resurrection of Jesus is also a valid passage from Josephus.
The statement concerning Christians written by Tacitus is also cited as a Christian interpolation. Tacitus states that Christians were targeted by Nero to explain the cause of the fires in Rome. Tacitus writes, “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…” This passage has been scrutinized by individuals such as Martin who questions whether “Tacitus was not simply repeating information that he obtained from Christian sources…” Some of the problems Martin addresses is why Tacitus uses the wrong title for Pilate and why he uses the term Christos which would be a reference to the Messiah which he doubts would have been found in Roman archives. Martin therefore concludes that the reference by Tacitus does not represent an independent source of information concerning the historical nature of Jesus.
In a defense of the Tacitus passage, McDowell says that if Tacitus had referred to Jesus by his name, then he would have had to explain how Jesus is related to Christians and if this had been a Christian source material then they would have used Jesus or Christ Jesus as a reference In reference to the supposedly incorrect title for Pilate, perhaps Tacitus was simply using the modern day title for clarity for his readers. There is no reason to accept that an historian such as Tacitus would simply record information from a Christian source. This would not benefit him in any way. Also, Tacitus records later in Annals 15.44 a negative view of Christians. Tacitus writes, “…and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
This statement from Tacitus does not show any reason for believing that he would have allowed Christians to dictate any part of his historical account. Tacitus appears to have regarded Christianity as an evil superstition. It is highly unlikely that Tacitus is recording anything but the truth as he knew it. This strongly reinforces that Tacitus does stand as an independent witness of the historicity of Jesus Christ.
Martin also addresses Suetonius who mentions an “agitator names Chrestus.” Suetonius writes that “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in A.D. 49] expelled them from Rome.” Martin asserts that it is unlikely that this refers to Jesus because Chrestus was the Latin form of a common Greek name. If it referred to Jesus Christ it should have been spelled Christus. Therefore, what we have in this incident would be an incorrect referencing of Jesus Christ. The agitator would have been an individual by the name of Chrestus. What is being proposed is that we are not referencing the Christ of the New Testament but an unrelated individual by the name of Chrestus.
McDowell points out a reference in Acts 18 to Aquila and Priscilla who were Jews that had been expelled from Rome under Claudius. The recorder of the incident would have been told that the hostilities were at the instigation of Christus. Having never heard this name, the reporter could have incorrectly recorded Chrestus which was a name he was familiar with. When Suetonius reviewed this record years later, he would have recorded the name Chrestus from the record incorrectly written years earlier. This would mean a simple continuation of a spelling error and not an incorrect referencing of persons.
It must be noted that a recording of this event in Acts 18 that corresponds historically with the Roman historical records of that time does provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the two recordings are referencing the same event. This is an instance where secular writings coincide with Christian historical writings which strengthen their historicity. If we go with the most likely interpretation, the historical reference in Acts 18 coinciding with Roman historical records strengthens the case that this is referencing the Christ of the New Testament.
Martin also questions why there is no earlier rabbinical literature that mentions Jesus. He states that the earliest mentions in the Talmud of Jesus are from the second century A.D. Moreover; the historical account from these writings contradicts the gospels. They present a Jesus that is over one hundred years before the Jesus of the gospels and does not match up with the description of Jesus found in the gospels. The Jesus mentioned in the Talmud is identified as a magician and heretic. The same can be said of the Tol’doth Jesu which is a later Talmudic writing and speaks of a Jesus who was not virgin born or resurrected.
Martin uses these passages to stress his legend theory concerning Jesus. Since these writings supposedly represent independent information concerning a Jesus from a hundred years earlier than the life of the Jesus of the gospels, this calls into question the historical nature of the Jesus of the gospels.
The difficulty with this assumption is that the Talmudic writings spoken of here are dated into the second century A.D. Why could it not be just as feasible that the Talmudic writings are presenting legendary material since they are so far removed from the apparent historical events? Some of the references equated with Jesus are highly disputed and unreliable. Martin references Yeshu ben Pantera in the Talmud whose mother was Mary Magdala and who was crucified in B.C. 126. This was an apparent attempt at showing that there were references to a crucified Jesus dating back to the B.C. times.
The problem with this interpretation is that the writings never identify Ben Pantera with Jesus and that this story actually references the Egyptian mentioned in Acts 21:38 and was spoken of by Josephus in Antiquities 20.8.6. What this shows is that confusion in stories has taken place in the Talmudic passages. So, it appears that interpretations of the Talmudic stories are incorrectly associated with the Jesus of the gospels.
In the Toledoth Yeshu, a drastically different picture of Jesus is presented. Jesus is presented as an illegitimate child who used sorcery to perform miracles and signs. He battles Yehuda Iskarioto in the sky and loses. He was eventually arrested and hanged on a cabbage stem. His body was removed from its burial place and thrown in a water channel. His disciples claimed he had resurrected. Rabbi Tanchuma finds the body and sheds light on the hoax. His disciples flee and spread this religion around the world.
An immediate problem with this story is that Rabbi Tachuma lived some four hundred years after Jesus according to history. It is obvious that this story does not portray historical information concerning the Jesus of the gospels. The writing of the Toledoth Yesu dates to perhaps the fifth century A.D. This late writing coupled with the purely imaginative story and the historical inaccuracies makes this narrative lack authority. The continued use of this narrative to shed doubt on the historical Jesus of the gospels is simply poor historical criticism and inquiry.
While some of the later rabbinical literature is negative toward Jesus, the earliest rabbinical teachings are “not as bitter and hostile as that of the later rabbis.” The most revealing information is that they do validate the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The earlier rabbinical writings do validate historical references to things such as a following among the Jews, Jewish involvement in His death, and healing events.
What we see in the rabbinical literature is that early writings are seen as more reliable in presenting aspects of the facts concerning the Jesus of Nazareth. While some of the historical information is misleading and inaccurate, it does help to establish that there was a true historical Jesus of Nazareth. The later rabbinical writings carry too much of a legendary tone with much more inaccuracies and obvious embellishments. France concludes that “Uncomplimentary as it is, this is at least, in a distorted way, evidence for the impact Jesus’ miracles and teaching made.” The rabbinical literature in the Talmud reveals that the writers did not think Jesus was a myth or a legend. This speaks directly against the views of Wells.
The evidence shown thus far, points to the general acceptance that there was a Jesus Christ who lived during the first century A.D. There is evidence internal and external that addresses the historical reality of such an individual based on a preponderance of the evidence. What needs to now be addressed is His claim to be the Son of God, indeed equal with God. This will need to be approached by investigating his most direct claim of Christianity. That claim is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As was stated earlier, debunk the claims of the Resurrection and Christianity will collapse. If Jesus was who He claimed to be then the evidence for those claims would pivot on the resurrection. If there was no resurrection, then every other teaching of Jesus would lose its foundation of truth.
Martin starts his denial on the resurrection by stating that the resurrection of Jesus could have taken place by natural means which are yet to be understood or discovered scientifically. He holds that in the future, we may discover the scientific and natural laws which brought about this resurrection. There are a couple of interesting facts to mention here. It is interesting how Martin earlier on in his book questions the historicity of Jesus but now in his section on the resurrection he accepts it by even attempting to question the resurrection and to offer evidence from science for how it happened would be forthcoming. It is difficult to defend against the resurrection of someone who you claim to have never existed. His chapter on resurrection presupposes the historical reality of Jesus.
When he states that scientific evidence for the resurrection would be forthcoming, he commits an argument to the future fallacy. We cannot claim as part of our present evidence against something that future evidence will prove our point. We have to first dispel with present evidence and not appeal to something that may be forthcoming in the future. This would be the same thing as if someone claimed that evolution is true and stated that one day in the future, we will find those transitional forms to prove it true. Proof for an argument must come from presently available evidences. So, we can immediately disregard this approach by Martin as poor argument.
Next, he denies the resurrection by claiming that deceit was a motive. Martin states that “Deception, fraud, or trickery can also make it appear as if a conflict has occurred…they could make such claims and by various tricks deceive a gullible public into believing them. Once again, Martin is offering an assertion and not an argument. There is no evidence being presented for his statements. On the contrary, a quick perusal of the actions of the early Christians would point to the fact that they believed that what they were proclaiming was true. If they were attempting to deceive or use trickery, they deceived themselves. What benefit would they receive by attempting such a deception? Let us list a few. They endured persecution, were dispersed from their homes, suffered ridicule and hate, and gave their lives for their belief. Would someone who knew the truths of the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection subject themselves to such treatment if it was in their power to stop it?
Craig states that “Without the belief in the resurrection the Christian faith could not have come into being. The disciples would have remained crushed and defeated men. Even had they continued to remember Jesus as their beloved teacher, his crucifixion would have forever silenced any hopes of his being the Messiah.”
Taking this quote into consideration, how could we understand the actions of the disciples if they knew this was a deception or fraud? Are we to believe that they knowingly died for a lie? We would not have seen empowered preaching associated with a known deception. When Martin claims that deception is a possibility, he fails to address the historical evidence of the change in the early Christians and their zeal for their message. This zeal led them to sacrifice everything including their lives. Martin’s assertion of deceit carries no evidential weight since it provides no supporting evidence, it too is disallowed in the discussion of the truthfulness of the resurrection.
Martin then proceeds to deny the validity of the resurrection on psychological grounds. Martin states that “religious attitudes often foster uncritical belief and acceptance. Indeed, in religious contexts uncritical belief is often thought to be a value, while doubt and skepticism are considered vices.” Again, Martin continues with the assertions without argumentative supports. While it may be true that some do not investigate truth claims, that does not mean that all fail to investigate their held beliefs. Christianity offers many examples of how the early followers investigated their beliefs and offered support. The field of apologetics is an example of this endeavor. Paul uses apologetics in his evangelism. He did not call for an uninvestigated belief. He actually commended the Bereans for researching the words he spoke to them. Paul makes this claim in 1 Thessalonians 5:20, “Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil” (1 Thess. 5:20). This is a call to test or investigate claims not to blindly accept all alleged truth without validating it. It actually calls for a rejecting of false claims.
1 Peter 3:15 states, “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…(1 Peter 3:15). The call for prepared reasoning for our beliefs is clear in Scripture. In order to have a reason for our beliefs, we have to have investigated their claims in order to be prepared to defend. You cannot defend what you blindly accept without reason.
Luke 1:1-3 offers this defense. Luke writes, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning…” (Lk 1:1-3 NIV). Why didn’t Luke just accept the accounts without investigation? Luke wanted to present his friend Theophilus with a truthful account so that he would be able to believe with reason and faith.
These biblical references point to the truth that the early followers were not just gullible believers but were intentional disciples who researched in order to defend and share the truths of Jesus Christ. They never called for a blind acceptance but offered proofs. If God had expected belief without evidence, then He would have never provided any miracles to substantiate the claims of Christ. Martin therefore is unwarranted in his claims that Christians were just gullible believers.
Martin then criticizes the reasoning behind the writing of the Resurrection stories in the gospels. He quotes Reginald Fuller who states that the Gospel narratives “can no longer be read as direct accounts of what happened, but rather as vehicles of proclamation. Such was their original intention…” Martin then goes on to add that “if the Gospel stories of the Resurrection were indeed shaped by the purposes of the evangelists and intended as vehicles of proclamation…we should be suspicious of their reliability.” Martin has taken an historical document and attempted to turn it into Christian propaganda again without any evidence to support this claim. This is a large leap and it must be understood that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Martin offers no such proof.
The supposed inconsistencies in the gospel message accounts are accepted by Martin to be ample reason to doubt the historical accuracy of the gospel stories. Martin evaluates the specific instances in the gospels where the story writers offer differing specifics concerning the events at the tomb. Martin speaks of the specifics of when the stone is moved away and the different versions which speak of varying angel appearances as well as the individuals present at the tomb. Martin sums up his objections by stating that “the accounts of what happened at the tomb are either inconsistent or can only be made consistent with the aid of implausible interpretations. Without such interpretations they simply could not all be true.”
Norman Geisler offers an explanation for these supposed contradictions. Historians use the term “coherence with dissimilarity” to relate to eyewitness events that tell the same story but with differing details. Multiple eyewitnesses that relate similar stories with some dissimilar details actually strengthen the case. Each viewer of an event observes an event from their particular perspective and vantage point. When an investigator interrogates witnesses to a crime, he will look for dissimilarity in their stories. If the stories relate exactly the same details, then there remains the possibility that coercion has taken place and that the stories have been rehearsed. The same can be true in the cases of the gospel stories. The writers are recording the viewpoints of multiple witnesses. They would of course contain slight differences in the story.
Simon Greenleaf a famous Harvard lawyer was converted to Christianity based on reviewing the evidence presented by the Gospel writers. He concluded that “Copies which had been as universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels, would have been received in evidence in any court of justice, without the slightest hesitation.” The reasoning behind this is that the gospels can be harmonized to a point that still shows no collusion of the events. A too perfectly harmonized story would cause suspicion rather than dispel it.
Now that the integrity of the story has been shown to be strong and historically sound, we will now turn to a discussion of some of the ways in which the facts of the Resurrection itself have been challenged. An interesting fact concerning the arguments against the Resurrection is that they are repetitive. Arguments against the Resurrection have been asked and answered, yet these same objections keep showing up.
Martin suggests that the only eyewitness account of Jesus’ post resurrection was Paul. The rest are only second and third hand reports. He then claims Paul’s vision as hallucinatory. This of course is inaccurate. John 20 records that the disciple whom Jesus loved was also present at the empty tomb. He later in his Gospel in John 21 discloses that this beloved disciple is an “eyewitness to and writer of the things recorded in the Gospel…At face value the statement says that the Beloved Disciple is the author of the Gospel and saw personally what is recorded in it.” It is obvious that Martin is incorrect in trying to claim that there are no independent eyewitnesses to the Resurrection. If Martin could show that Paul was the only eyewitness of the Resurrected Jesus, then he would only have to discredit Paul’s story. This however is not allotted to Martin.
Concerning the hallucinatory accusation against Paul, Martin makes this claim. “It is unclear from this if Paul’s experience was that of an embodied Jesus and, if it was an experience of a body, if other people would have had a similar experience if they had been similarly situated…Thus we have no good reason to suppose that Paul’s experience was not a hallucination.” Because Paul records seeing a light and hearing a voice, Martin says it is unclear as to whether this was a hallucination or a true vision of the risen Jesus. Martin then goes further and suggests that “Paul, no less than other early Christians, could have constructed stories that furthered his own purpose of spreading Christianity.”
The question that needs to be asked of Martin is why. Why would Paul desire to further the spread of Christianity when he was intent on destroying the Christian church? What would change a man such as Paul from destruction to collaboration? Ludemann, in his book The Resurrection of Jesus, also claims hallucination as the answer. Ludemann asserts that Paul “had a guilt complex because he struggled under the Jewish law and its demands. So, he hallucinated Jesus on the Damascus Road.”
Comparing these two accusations, it is easy to see that these assertions do not offer the best of explanation. They are once again merely assertions and not arguments. Based on what we know of Paul’s life, it is not easily accepted that Paul was suffering any guilt since he himself believed that what he was doing was preserving the truths of Judaism against the teachings of Christianity.
William Lane Craig gives criterion that must be used to evaluate arguments against the Resurrection. He says to ask the following questions. “Does it have great explanatory scope? …Does it have great explanatory power?…Is it plausible?…” When these questions are applied to the before mentioned assertions, it becomes clear that they do not meet this criterion. For Paul to change as he did, there had to be some greater reason than a guilty conscience and a vivid imagination. When Paul’s teachings are compared to the other Christian writers of the New Testament, they correlate well. Paul does not come across in his letters as one who was struggling with internal guilt surrounding the Jewish law. He even at times subjected himself to that law in order to show that his actions were not an attack on Jewish law but that his hope in Jesus was a fulfillment of the hopes of Judaism. The Messiah had come. In Acts 21:21-26, Luke records that Paul willingly went through the purification rites of the Jews in order to show that he was not attacking Jewish law. Paul’s conversion to Christianity was not reactionary but was due to a true experience with the risen Jesus. This is the best explanation of the events.
One of the most compelling of all of the proofs for the Resurrection centers on the responses of the early followers of Christ. The disciples were willing to die for their belief in the risen Christ. Eleven of the twelve disciples died a martyr’s death for their beliefs. Arguments can be made that there are no independent eyewitness accounts from these disciples written by their own hands but as has been shown this is incorrect. Even if it were true and we only had second hand accounts written, that would not change the historical fact that these men were willing to die for what they knew to be true.
Martin criticizes this proof by claiming that Christians are not the only ones willing to die for their beliefs. He states that “People who have not claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus’ appearances have also been transformed into people who were willing to die for their Christian beliefs. In addition, Christian heretics have been willing to die for their beliefs. Let us not forget either that Muslims. Mormons… and many others have been willing to die for what they believed.”
What Martin is failing to understand here is that the early disciples were willing to die for what they knew to be true, not what they had accepted as true. They were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus. Had they been attempting to deceive, they would have never let that deception lead to their deaths. Individuals such as Muslims and Mormons are willing to die for what they have been told is true. There is a major difference here. No man will die for what they know to be a lie.
Built on the previous statements concerning what the disciples had personally witnessed, some have even proposed the idea of a mass hallucination. Martin suggests the possibility that collective delusions or mass hysteria could account for the Resurrection stories. He quotes Hines, “a significant part of the population of an area, which can be as small as a single building or as large as a nation, becomes convinced that some strange event is taking place for which there is no immediately obvious explanation…Sometimes paranormal…causes are proposed and accepted.” Martin would have us accept that the events of the Resurrection could be explained away by simply creating a mass hysteria. The early believers convinced themselves psychologically that a Resurrection had taken place.
One way to dispense with this argument is to recall that the early followers of Christ were just as shocked at the crucifixion as anyone else. They were not looking for a resurrection. They were hiding away in an upper room. They were surely disillusioned and in despair. Even when they received word of a resurrection, they doubted it. Jumping to the conclusion that a resurrection had taken place would not have been their first response. As Lane states, “They did not expect Jesus to come back to life. As far as they were concerned, the last act of the tragedy had been played, and the show was over.”
Craig states that the hallucination hypothesis could not explain how the Gospel stories could have developed in such a short time and with such physical details. There were many appearances of Jesus under different circumstances. More compelling is that fact that hallucinations do not provide any new information because hallucinations are a projection of the individual’s mind. They do not create totally new experiences.
Regardless of any of this discussion concerning hallucinations, the evidence of an empty tomb must still be dealt with. If there is no explanation for the empty tomb then it makes sense to go with the most comprehensive and complete explanation of the facts.
The next claim by Martin is that perhaps a deception was made by some outside group or persons in order to perpetuate a fraud on the disciples making them suppose that they had seen Jesus after his death. Martin continues to state that there is as much a possibility of this scenario as for the Resurrection story. Martin continues a bad habit of making assumptions in order to spread doubt. Martin still fails to answer any of the questions pertaining to the actions of the early followers. Martin pieces together conspiracy theories, possible fraud attempts, mass hallucinations and the like to try and create a plausible explanation against the Resurrection. The outcome of this attempt is speculation after speculation without any supportive walls.
One last attempt by Martin is to question whether the Resurrection proves anything anyways. If the Resurrection were an accurate historical event, does that prove Jesus’ claims to deity? Martin goes as far as to state that miracles such as the Resurrection “could be brought about by a supernatural being who was not God. Thus, it would be perfectly consistent for an atheist in the narrow sense to believe that Jesus was restored to life.”
Proof of a Resurrection does not imply evidence for a Christian God or that Jesus was his Son. Martin states that “it is not implausible to suppose that although having supernatural powers is a necessary condition for being a god it is not a sufficient cause. If this is correct, then disbelief in a god or gods is compatible with belief in supernatural beings.”
It becomes apparent that the rejection that Martin seems to have is against the Christian God Himself. He does not have a problem holding to some other supernatural being being responsible for miracles such as the Resurrection. He just does not see this possibility in Jesus Christ. He asks the following question. “What sort of evidence would make it probably that God, rather than some other supernatural being, was the cause of the Resurrection?” The answer to his question is obvious. It would take a collection of evidence that when put together would offer the most comprehensive and plausible answer that offers the most explanatory power. This follows the criterion mentioned earlier by Craig. Christianity offers the best explanation for the facts at hand.
Martin closes his argument on the Resurrection by stating that if there is a God, he could have accomplished his task. He concludes that if God is all powerful there is an” indefinite number of ways that he could have carried out his purpose. For example, instead of dying on the cross, Jesus could have become transformed into an obviously heavenly being.”
This final assertion from Martin shows clearly that Martin has no idea of the true redemptive plan of God. Tracing throughout the entire Old and New Testament is the redemptive story of the need for the shedding of blood for the remission of sin. Jesus was fulfilling exactly those demands. There had to be a perfect sacrifice for the sins of men. God offers Himself through His Son Jesus Christ. Martin has no understanding of the basic doctrines of the Bible. It is therefore not surprising that his work lacks any clarity or argumentative power. He doesn’t even understand the teachings of his opponent.
This research paper has shown that there is ample evidence to support the historical nature of the Christian faith. Jesus Christ is a true historical figure that is supported by internal and external evidence. The message from the Gospels and the letters of the New Testament provide a cohesive and comprehensive story relating the truths of Christianity. As far as the Resurrection is concerned, the New Testament offers the best explanation for the events. No other opposing argument offers the strength of claim that we see in the New Testament accounts. The willingness of the followers to die for their beliefs is among the strongest of the evidences. What we are left with is a high degree of certainty concerning the historical truth of Christianity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Copan, Paul and Ronald K. Tacelli eds. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A
Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2000.
Craig, William L. Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection. Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1981.

Geisler , Norman L. and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.
Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1999.
Martin , Michael. The Case Against Christianity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991.
McDowell, Josh and Bill Wilson. Evidence for the Historical Jesus. Eugene: Harvest
House Publishers,1993.