HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran6.htm
 
WHY THE OLD TESTAMENT IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD

The Christians have a book called the Bible which is supposed to be the word of God, in other words, it was authored by God through men. It consists of the Old and New Testaments. True Christians teach that the Bible is infallible for God can't make mistakes.
 
They are forced to admit that the Bible contains parts which are unclear. There are far more interpretations of the Bible among Christians than there are religious sects. This is because of the lack of clarity. The Christians have books in defence of the Christian lie that there is no error in the Bible but say some passages are obscure. One of them is When Critics Ask, (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois ,1992) which admits that there are unclear parts in the Bible (page 18, 40). Yet these books try to make out that there are no errors in the Bible. The authors only admit the obscurity for they are forced to and will look stupid or deceitful if they don't admit it. But lack of clarity proves that the Bible makes errors for lack of clarity is an error. It is just as serious as a contradiction. A contradiction says one thing and says the other as well. So it tells you nothing. So does lack of clarity. Christians have been told this for centuries and they refuse to hear. Also, if the Bible contradicts itself about say when Jesus did something it proves that it is accusing God of making a mistake. It is doing that just as much if there is a lack of clarity. Lack of clarity contradicts the Bible claim that God does not make mistakes or that God is almighty and all-knowing. Contradiction in the Bible does that too. Lack of clarity proves the Bible is not the word of God. The Bible is supposed of speak of three, Father and Son and Holy Spirit and yet it says there is only one God. That is hardly clarity and is a possible contradiction. The Christians speculate it means there is one it as regards God and three whos or three persons in one God which may make no sense for they admit that they don't understand this.
 
It says a lot about Christians when they don't see the Bible saying that God commanded the Jews to stone adulterous people to death as in capital punishment, commanding Jesus to accept crucifixion and a degrading death, saying people deserve to suffer for all eternity in Hell and the Bible declaration that doubting God's word is the ultimate sin as errors. That is heartless. No truly good person pretends that these are not errors and that the Bible saying Abraham did such and such and then saying the opposite would be an error!
 
If a religion is not fanatical then how you behave when you practice it will not be significantly different from what you would do if you did not believe. The Bible is fanatical. It forbids lying under all circumstances and you cannot live if you go by that. Jesus said that we must not swear at all but mean yes when we say yes and mean no when we say no meaning that there should be no need for oaths meaning lies are always wrong. The reason lies are wrong is because they oppose the truth meaning that if somebody says something wrong it is your duty to correct them no matter what the cost will be if lying is wrong. Most of the lies are silent ones when we know our silence will be taken as assent to something that is untrue.

Being all wise and all powerful God cannot err and would not need to lie. Yet God lied in the Bible albeit only the once. He told Abraham that he wanted him to slaughter his son Isaac though he didn’t in Genesis 22. Believers ignore this for it contradicts the rest of the Bible, which certainly looks down on all lies even ones that are told for a serious reason, and the Bible certainly made a slip-up here. Genesis is a book of the Torah which lies at the heart of the Old and New Testaments and which they revere as their foundation in authority. When it accuses God of lying there is no point in even considering if the other books are the word of God.

The Bible says that when a prophet gives the word of God as God spoke it there will be no error in it and even one error or false prediction demands that the prophet be stoned and his words rejected (Deuteronomy 18). By implication then a prophet should make prophecies of the future for anybody could claim to be a prophet while making no predictions. Yet the Bible canonised the writings of Moses who gave no sign of having prophetic ability and Jesus failed the test simply by resting his own prophetic authority on Moses’. The prophecy of Jesus about Jerusalem was constructed from the Old Testament and even if Jesus made the prophecy it could have been something a true prophet said which was incorporated into the gospels. We have no proof that Jesus made it. When God is so strict about revelation, true scripture that prophesies should be able to be proven to have been written before the event. There is no conclusive proof that the Book of Daniel for example preceded the prophecies it made. In that case, how could it qualify as real scripture?

The Old Testament treats men who made false prophecies as real prophets despite Deuteronomy 18 stating that even if a prophet is always right in what he predicts he is to be rejected as an anti-God if he makes one false prophecy. The Bible God says you need at least two independent and reliable witnesses before you can believe a claim and where are the affidavits backing up the divinity of the books that made it into the Old Testament?

Most of the prophecies are vague which itself indicates that the prophets are merely guessing and predicting that God is telling them stuff. For example, Zechariah failed to make even one convincing prophecy though he tried hard enough in his book. None of them has been fulfilled and it seems scandalous to listen to a prophet who has not been proven by his words all coming true in the light of Deuteronomy 18 which has such a strict but logical method of telling God’s prophets from the fake prophets. As for the one about the Messiah going into Jerusalem on an ass and another animal anybody could fulfil that especially if they ignore the context which says the world must be conquered by God’s people first while when Jesus went into Jerusalem on a donkey it was the people of God who were conquered by the world.

An example of an outright false prophecy is Ezekiel’s prediction about Tyre (26). This prophecy is vaunted as a fulfilled detailed prophecy in almost every Christian fundamentalist apologetic work. The prophecy predicts that the armies of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon will attack Tyre, which was a city built on a rock on the middle of the sea and which had branches on the coastline, and kill the inhabitants but since he did not throw the remains of the city in the sea the Christian assume that that bit is about Alexander the Great and his men who came along decades later in 322 BC and who made a causeway of the rubble of the city in the sea. First of all there is no reason to think the prophecy means to change from Neb to Alexander so it doesn’t. Grammatically, words like they refer to the group you mentioned last so the usage of they in the passage indicates Neb and his men only. Second Tyre was near the sea and Tyre was the name of the city on the rock with the coastline suburb. Ezekiel meant that the city on the rock would be thrown into the sea for he stressed the bareness of the rock and that it would be bare forever. He did not have Alexander’s causeway in mind but just a demolition of the city and commonsense said that if the city was destroyed it was unlikely to be restored. Alexander when he cleared away the rubble built his own towers and fortresses on the site of the rock so it was not bare.

Christians have no business boasting about the Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled for with the many prophets there would have been it would not have been hard to select the scriptures of those who got it right by chance and accept them as part of the word of the Lord. But the truth is the prophets were anything but impressive.

The Bible predicts that Edom will be desolate as far as Teman, totally unpopulated, conquered by other nations and by Israel, shall have a history of blood, will be populated by wild animals, stop trading and its bad luck will astonish all who see it (page 288-9, Evidence That Demands a Verdict). First of all Israel believed that evil godless nations would fare badly and that Israel would win for it was the people of God. Edom was a depraved and deadly nation and had loads of enemies who were happy to destroy it. The wild animals would naturally set in on its collapse and they were never short in that region. Naturally trading would stop and the fall of any nation is astonishing. The prophecies are totally unimpressive for the prediction of the fall of Edom had nothing to do with seeing the future but the Hebrew superstition that God would bring temporal disaster on evil nations. Everything else is just a deduction from that. Jeremiah could have copied Isaiah when both said Edom was doomed so why should we consider Jeremiah a true prophet when he could have been a plagiarist? So if a Catholic naturally believes that God will dethrone an antipope in favour of the true pope and this happens as she forecasts does that mean she is a prophet? Of course not. The fact that weak prophecies like that turn up in the Bible is a sure sign that the prophets were trying to dupe their hearers.

The prophecy of Ezekiel that nobody would dwell in Egypt which God would reduce to an “utter waste” for 40 years has failed (chapter 29). The Christian solution is that the prophecy was conditional though there is no hint of that in the passage so it is unconditional. Christians tell the same lie to excuse the failure of many Bible prophecies.

Nahum might have been able to guess that if Nineveh were built on rivers that floods would happen and perhaps enemies would deliberately flood the city. It is admitted that he thought it was easy for enemies to flood the place (page 301). Would it have been any wonder if Nahum had guessed that Nineveh would not be rebuilt after the destruction when it was a sitting duck and had got such a severe deal at the hands of its enemies thanks to its watery location? Nahum knew that Nineveh had many rivers passing through it so that explains his prophecy as guesswork. Nineveh was told to stockpile water when Nahum forgot that it wouldn’t need to do that if rivers flowed through it.

The prophecies of Isaiah (13) and Jeremiah (51) saying that Babylon shall be destroyed are unimpressive for it was the city of a hated empire and all empires fall. Isaiah knew that when this happened it would not be re-inhabited because since it was such a strong city – it had 90 foot thick walls - its enemies would make sure it would be no use to anybody ever again. It was in the middle of the desert which hardly advertised it as a potential home that should be restored. It was too expensive to rebuild. Jeremiah knew that nobody was going to take the stones for their own use so no wonder he predicted that.

Even fundamentalist Haley’s Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible admits that the Bible often makes numerical mistakes. One passage gives one number and the number is different in a parallel account. This is blamed on copyist’s errors even when there is no evidence that an error was made. Any ancient, not to mention some modern, book could be proclaimed the word of God if you can blame the copyists. Why not the Book of Jubilees which isn’t part of the Bible? The contradictions in names in the Bible is also explained the same way. This is totally unfair without evidence for they have the nerve to say the Bible never contradicts itself. How do they know?

In 1 Samuel 15, the prophet Samuel gives Saul the word of God commanding Saul to lead Israel to destroy utterly the people of Amalek and leaving nothing left not even the babies or the cattle. Saul did as God said but didn’t do away with the cattle and the sheep and for that God vowed to fire him as king of Israel. The war was purely motivated by revenge for there was no need to destroy all the babies too. God said he wanted to get his own back on the people of Amalek for fighting Israel when Israel came out of Egypt many years before. Christians say that we are God’s property and he has the right to decree that people can kill us. If a plausible prophet then comes along and persuades people to kill for his God then lay it at their door. The Bible is evil.

Judges 1:19 tells us that God could not drive out mountain people for the sake of his people because of their chariots which were made of iron. Elsewhere, God is said to be almighty. Christians solve this contradiction by saying that God was unable for a mysterious moral reason clear only to himself. Perhaps leading the people to defeat people with strong chariots would have made them proud (55) but there is no hint of that in the text. The straightforward interpretation must be taken and it blames the chariots. God just couldn’t help. He didn’t have the power.

The Bible says millions of Israelites would have died in the wilderness. Where are the bones? The Israelites buried their dead deep for cleanliness and because burial was thought to be most important so the bones should still be there.

In recent years, some of the contradictions between the Bible and historians and archaeology have been solved. In the light of Deuteronomy 18, God could not let this take so long. He forbids acceptance of anything as scripture that errs meaning anything we are reasonably sure is in error. If he did not want the people of the past to believe the Bible then he does not want us to believe either.

God says in the Bible that rabbits chew the cud. Christians “solve” this error by saying rabbits only look as if they do. They would not go that far in defending an error in another religion’s scripture.

Christians see a gradual unfolding of “truths” in the Bible. God revealed only as much as man could take. So he gave the Jews the idea that he was one person and the Christians the idea that he was three. So if somebody writes a new scripture today and it is full of immoral doctrines and full of strange ones he can use that excuse for his errors. A Bible that delivers truth piecemeal is a helping of religious quackery.

The Old Testament is not the word of God. Thank goodness!
 
It Ain’t Necessarily So, Investigating the Truth of the Biblical Past, Matthew Sturgis, Headline Books, London, 2001
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois ,1992