UNREFUTED ARGUMENTS | UNANSWERED QUESTIONS | TRICKS | ANTI-SUPERNATURAL BIAS | PROBLEM OF EVIL | EHRMAN | HOME

These arguments of mine were never successfully refuted. All attempted refutations were logically fallacious and when this was realized these particular threads of the argument were dropped without acknowledgement of any kind. This leads me to believe they must be pretty good arguments.

Embeded below are attempted refutations by Carlos marked Carlos. My responses follow each attempted refutation. His original unedited e-mail amy be viewed by clicking here.

I have divided their attacks into ten categories (eleven counting the uncategorized section):

(A) They misunderstand or neglect the immediate or broad Biblical context.

(B) They misunderstand or neglect the cultural or historical context.

(C) The old "problem of evil," often in a disguised form.

(D) They neglect range of sense.

(E) Improper application of the rules of evidence.

(F) They interpret figures of speech as literal.

(G) They misquote the Bible and then attack the misquote.

(H) They have an anti-supernatural bias

(I) They mix up historical or archeological fact with historical or archeological theory.

(J) They mix up science fact with science theory

(K) Miscellaneous other

    Ehrman's Book

    Lack of Universal Law

    Documentary Hypothesis

    Arbitrary formation of the Canon

(1) Atheist Attack: Why is Jesus needed to cleanse us from sin? Adam is the one who ate the forbidden fruit. According to Deut. 24:16, children will not be punished for the sins of their fathers, so why is Jesus needed?

My Answer: Your proclivity to commit sin was inherited from Adam and is a consequence of his poor choices. If you need cleansing from sin it is your own, not his. Perhaps you do not have any sins yet, as Noah did not in Genesis 6. But as it says in Romans 3:23 and is demonstrated in Noah's life in Genesis 9 you will eventually. The particular sins you may or may not have committed or may commit in the future is a matter you will have to sort out for yourself with your conscience and your Maker.

The Atheist Response was to claim that Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20 contradict one antoher.

My Answer: If I decide to drink up my income and beat my wife and children, they bear the consequences of what I do. God does not, however, hold them accountable.

Carlos: Nor does he intervene to avoid their suffering. So it can be argued that God willed it. Also, as I said elsewhere, moral behavior, including sin, is not inherited.

My Answer: Carlos' first response is not a response. He uses it as an opportunity to bring up three unrelated points. First to accuse God of not helping us in our suffering. It is not on topic, and nothing could be further from the truth. God is very concerned by our situation. He sent His Son to die in our place, so that we might be rescued. Yes, our suffering is within God's will. Because He is good we know then, that our suffering is necessary. I have made no claim that moral behavior is inherited. Two red herrings and a straw man. This is not a promising beginning.

(2) Atheist Attack: The Bible contradicts itself when it says in one place that everyone is a sinner and another that some people were without sin.
Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
Versus
Genesis 6:9 "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."
and
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
All means all, so Romans contradicts the other two.

My Answer: Both the people mentioned sinned later on making it possible for both statements to be true. Even though Noah was perfect in chapter 6 by the time we read ahead to chapter 9 he is not so perfect. Ditto for Job. By the time Paul wrote Romans 3:23 he was writing the truth. There is no contradiction. (By the way the word all comes from the Greek pan which can be translated a number of different ways. Even the English word all as a fairly wide range of sense.)

The Atheist Response accused me of inserting verb tenses without justification or evidence. He claimed that Romans 3:23 was meant to be taken as on-going.

My Answer: Bible translators do a credible job for the most part. However, verb tenses are the trickiest to translate. In fact, in a sense, they are impossible. Greek and English do not have the same tenses. They do not even share the same attitude towards tense in general. In English tense is mostly about time. In Greek, tense is mostly about aspect. In Romans 3:23 the tense of "have sinned" is Aorist. The aspect is punctiliar and the time is past. It does fully support my arguments. I means that pan (usually translated all, each, or every) have at some particular point in the past committed at least one sin. At the time Paul wrote this statement it was true so far as I know. The punctiliar aspect is the exact opposite of "on-going."

Carlos: I still can't understand why you argue that people can remain sinless for some time before committing their first sin. The doctrine of original sin implies that we are sinners from birth. That's why Noah's perfection is contradictory with our universal state of damnation.

My Answer: I do not teach the doctrine of original sin. I do not think I have ever used the phrase, "universal state of damnation." I do not argue "that people can remain sinless for some time before committing their first sin." I simply observed that the Bible in a few cases reported that it did happen. Why would anyone think it is not possible? Does that count as one, two, or three straw men?

(3) Atheist Attack: By the time Jesus rose from the dead many others had come back alive. (Widow of Nain's son, Jairus' daughter, Lazarus, etc.) Resurrections were a frequent phenomenon so why pay any attention to it at all? Yet, Paul says in Corinthians 15 that Christianity depends on it.

My Answer: Characterizing the resurrection as a "frequent phenomenon" is disingenuous. Besides, the point Paul is making has nothing to do with how spectacular it was. He is talking about how true it is. The resurrection is important because it confirms our forgiveness and is our assurance of eternal life.

Carlos: Paul doesn't explain how it is different from previous instances.

My Answer: Why does Paul need to do that? As far as I can recall, he does not mention the others at all. The differences are obvious. For one, the other people were called back to life, Jesus was not. Another red herring.

(4) Atheist Attack: Deuteronomy could not have been written by Moses. I describes his death and funeral in chapter 34.

My Answer: If you read the book you will find that it does not say Moses wrote it. Most of the book is recording what Moses spoke aloud. Clearly someone else put it on paper but since it is almost entirely the words of Moses it is reasonable to refer to it as one of the books of Moses.

The Atheist Response claimed that until about 300 years ago all of Christendom and Judaism claimed that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.

My Answer: For many centuries no one read the ending of Deuteronomy until someone noticed it three centuries ago? Well, that is a surprise to me. The designations for the scrolls were based on what they mostly contained. The Torah was called Moses. Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and Songs was called Psalms. etc. This led many people to believe that Moses literally wrote the whole thing. I do think any well informed person ever believed that.

The Atheist Response claimed on the basis of the documentary hypothesis that Moses was not the author of the first five books of the Bible.

My Answer: The first Bible I ever held in my hands had the passages marked according to the Documentary Hypothesis. My mother was trying to make sure I would never believe the thing. It seems credible to me that Genesis is a compiled account. I think Moses edited and compiled it. He may have also included some work of other people in Exodus. The others being compiled seems doubtful to me. I hope as my knowledge of Hebrew grows, to investigate this idea further. In any event, the Documentary Hypothesis leaves Deuteronomy pretty much intact as the work of a single writer.

Carlos: If some part of the Pentateuch is clearly not his, what assurance do we have that the rest is? Why refer to it unambiguously as Moses' writings?

My Answer: Deuteronomy starts with this: "These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel..." I have no reason to suspect that the writer is telling a lie. Why would you have such a suspicion? As I have already explained above, I know of no reasonably well informed person, who would be misled by referring to the Pentateuch as the Books or Writings of Moses. It is simply a convenient label. I'm sure that if our ancestors had realized that it would lead to people using it as an excuse for a baseless attack of God's word, they would not have started the practice.

(5) Atheist Attack: Ex. 33:20, which says no man can see God's face and live, contradicts Gen. 32:30, which says a man saw God's face and lived.

My Answer: One was referring to God the Father and the other to the pre-incarnate Christ.

The Atheist Response was very incredulous.

My answer: I'll tell you, but you won't like it. I conclude that it was the pre-incarnate Christ because Jacob survived. There is another explanation that some apologists use that you won't like either. They claim "seeing God face to face" is an idiom meaning he has confronted God, not that he has literally seen His face.

Carlos: What? Again, what? Jewish authors did not even have the concept of the trinity to work with. Jesus makes no appearance at all in the OT.

My answer: I can only answer for how I understand it, not how others do. Is that a red herring or a straw man? Maybe both.

(6) Atheist Attack: In 1 Cor. 1: 1 7 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul did not obey the great commission Matt. 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them...."

My Answer: Paul makes it clear in other places that (1) he did sometimes baptize and (2) Christians are to carry out the Great Commission as a team. Different people have different gifts from the Spirit and can contribute in different ways. If I financially support a missionary and never baptize anyone I am fulfilling the Great Commission. All Paul is saying is that he mainly preached while others on his team baptized.

Carlos: I wouldn't be as strict as Dennis in requiring that Paul baptized personally, but the fact remains that he didn't do it.

My answer: Classic case of ignoring the context. In 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 Paul says, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other." Paul lists at least four people that he baptized, indicates that he has baptized so many people he can not remember them all, and that is just at Corinth. Carlos' argument is a simple assertion contrary to fact.

(7) Atheist Attack: In Mark 10:19 Jesus listed "defraud not," as an Old Testament commandment.

My Answer: The Old Testament tells us not to defraud in many, many places. Proverbs 11:1 comes immediately to mind. I'll let you follow the cross references to other places.

Carlos: True, but the Mark quote refers to the classic Ten Commandments, which Jesus was supposed to be listing. "Defraud not" is not part of the "thou shalt" list.

My answer: I read the whole chapter. The Ten Commandments are never mentioned. Where do you get the idea Jesus was supposed to be listing them?

(8) Atheist Attack: Jesus clearly stated he was not God: John 14:28 "...for my Father is greater than I", John 20:17 "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God", and John 7:16 "My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me".

My Answer: When God the Son became a man he temporarily surrendered Himself to the authority of the Father in order to show us how it is done.

Carlos: This issue has to do with the doctrine of the trinity. Such nonsense has only two possible solutions: either God is afflicted with multiple personality disorder or believers are afflicted with terrible disturbances to their logical processes.

My answer: This is a false dichotomy. Another possibility is that the doctrine of the Trinity is true. God is not insane and there is nothing wrong with my logical faculties. As we have seen, you are the one who spews one logical fallacy after another; not me. Simply asserting two insulting descriptions of the doctrine of the Trinity does not disprove it.

(9) Atheist Attack: Jesus did not keep his promise in Matt. 16:28 when he said, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Surely you realize his listeners are all dead.

My Answer: He was speaking of His resurrection and the foundation of His church.

Carlos: The foundation of his church hardly has anything to do with this passage. Jesus "coming in his kingdom" is assumed to refer to his Second Coming, which belongs in the remote future.

My answer: Assumed by who? You? I'm sorry, you will have to defend your own assumptions. Do not expect me to do it for you. Another possible explanation is that He was referring to His glorification at the transfiguration.

(10) Atheist Attack: Jesus said, "Forgive them Father they know not what they do." from the cross. If he was God he must have been talking to himself. Isn't that evidence of an unbalanced mind? Or is it evidence of two Gods?

My Answer: I frequently talk to myself and I'm not even two persons in one, let alone three. I do not fully understand the Trinity. I'm not sure I could worship God if I could completely comprehend Him. I prefer God as He is, bigger, better, and more complicated than I am.

The Atheist Response indicated I was being irrational to make these statements and to worship a god I did not understand.

My Answer: I do know Who I am worshipping. I've been married to my wife for 35 years. I'm still learning things about her, but that does not mean I am ignorant of who she is. I can assure you I prefer rationality, sense and logic. None of those a priori preclude the mystical. I know God well enough to worship Him. What there is additional to know about Him is infinite.

Carlos: Issues about God's infinity aside, this is another problem related to the trinity. Its absurdity (see #8) remains.

My answer: Repeating the same assertion over and over again does not make it more convincing. Here is an example of an Argumentum ad Nauseam.

(11) Atheist Attack: Jesus said, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matt. 5:22). But in Matt. 23:17, 19, Luke 11:40, and 12:20 he calls people fools.

My Answer: If you look at the context of Matthew 5 you will discover He is talking about calling people names in contempt and/or with the intent to hurt them. When Jesus called people fools He was accurately describing them in an attempt to waken them to repentance.

Carlos: In Matthew 5 Jesus was commenting on the commandment against killing, expanding it to include even ill will. He made no mention of intent or modifying circumstances. Jesus remains guilty of insulting people.

My answer: I am not sure how to respond. You just repeated my argument. Yes, Jesus was explaining that ill will is wrong. Yes, Jesus insulted people, but there is no evidence that He ever did so with ill will. What is your point?

(12) Atheist Attack: Mark 16 says Christians can drink poison and survive. Care to try it?

My Answer: In this same passage we find a prophecy of Paul's surviving a viper bight on his trip to Rome and of tongues at Pentecost. I'm not sure what the poison drinking is about but I assume it might be something similar that has not been reported. Whether it is or is not, as Christians we are called to walk in wisdom not foolishness, so, no I'll pass on the poison.

The Atheist response included a syllogism something like this:

Premise: Believers can drink poison without suffering harm.

Premise: Thor is a believer.

Conclusion: Thor can drink poison without suffering harm.

My response: Your argument implies the existence of the word "all" in the first premise. The word is not there or implied in the underlying scripture. Your argument fails.

Carlos: While Jesus did mention tongues, relating this to Paul's incident with the viper is to overstretch the text. It could have had to do with any other incident, or to none at all. Second, the word "all" is not necessary in the text. The absence of quantity modifiers to a plural noun implies that the collective as a whole is meant.

My answer: Your opinion of the connection to the later events might be correct. I do not think so, but my evidence is thin. Either way it has nothing to do with the point at hand. My understanding of the Greek text is that "all" is not required. "Some" works as well. And since that is obviously the sensible understanding, that is the correct one. But I have only been studying Greek for four years, so I can not claim extensive expertise. What makes you think "all" is the only correct understanding of the Greek? They had a word for "all." Why didn't the writer use it, if he meant it?

(13) Atheist Attack: Eccl. 1:9 says "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun") but since then we have invented the atomic bomb and landed on the moon among many other scientific advances.

My Answer: The scientific principles that make atomic bombs and rockets possible were just as true when Eccl 1:9 was written as they are today. The proclivity of people to wage war and explore is the same as it has always been. I believe it is a warning against people like you who arrogantly believe they can look at a book thousands of years old and find something in it that no one else ever noticed.

Carlos: I wouldn't worry much about a passage that is mostly poetic, but I find it meaningful that both Dennis and you can support their positions from the text. As I see it, the only point where this portion of Ecclesiastes fails is in clarity.

My Answer: I admire your team work. One of you misinterprets the Scripture and the other one points to the misinterpretation using it to accuse the scriptures of lacking clarity. However, it is not a valid argument. Just because someone finds a way to misunderstand something does not mean it lacks clarity. "Everyone loves Amelia Bedelia, the literal-minded housekeeper! When she makes a sponge cake, she puts in real sponges. When she weeds the garden, she replants the weeds. And when she pitches a tent, she throws it into the woods!" (from http://www.harpercollinschildrens.com/harperchildrens/kids/gamesandcontests/features/amelia/). That is exactly what the lot of you sound like to me when you start interpreting Biblical poetry and prophecy. It would simply be funny, if it was not so deadly.

(14) Atheist Attack: It makes no sense for Jesus to be executed for the sins of other people. No real judge would allow such a thing.

My Answer: Again, you need to look up the word justice in the dictionary. I do not think you know what it means. This kind of thing happens all the time in our court system. If I am fined $125 dollars for speeding the judge could care less whether it is me, my father, my son, or my neighbor down the street who actually pays the $125.

Carlos: I don't think a fine can be compared to a death sentence. If the judge sends me to the chair, will he accept my willing cousin as a suitable substitute?

My answer: Not in the USA right now. But at other times and places, such things did happen.

(15) Atheist Attack: Mark 8:34 says "whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." Since Jesus had not yet died on the cross this is senseless.

My Answer: I was unaware that you were so familiar with the language, customs, and idiom of the day that you can categorically say that "this is senseless." The cross was as familiar to them as the electric chair or noose is to you and I.

Carlos: Yes, the cross was as familiar to them as the wheel, the sword and the brick wall. Among all the well-know items of the time, why would Jesus choose the cross in particular for his metaphor? Before Jesus became an iconic figure, what was "take up his cross" supposed to mean?

My answer: It meant you were on the way to your execution. It meant your life was over.

(16) Atheist Attack: Jesus could not have thought of himself as God since he said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46)

My Answer: They did not have chapter and verse references for the Scriptures at that time. That was a medieval invention. Jesus was merely referring his listeners to Psalm 22 in the manner of the day, by quoting the first verse. Psalm 22 has some very strong pictures of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Compare Psalm 22:18 and Luke 23:34. He was also showing us that turning our minds to scripture in times of great trial is a very good idea.

The Atheist Response indicated they did not believe a tortured man could have this much presence of mind.

My Answer: It is not far fetched at all. John Huss was burned at the stake over some doctrinal dispute with church hierarchy. During his execution he sang a prayer. He accomplished this feat by practicing pain endurance by burning himself with candles during his incarceration. Even if you do not accept that Jesus is Lord or that Psalms 22 is a prophecy of the crucifixion it could simply have been a man showing his followers that in times of distress turning to the scriptures is the best thing to do. Many great heroes over the centuries have shown us that what you do when you are in great pain is just as much a choice as at any other time.

Carlos: First, death by torture is not the most suitable moment for engaging in catechism. Second, this still does not resolve the inconsistency with the trinity doctrine (see #8).

My answer: Great men throughout history have used the torture leading to their death as a time to snatch one more victory from their tormentors. Even though they are being tortured to death, they continue to live their lives according to the purpose they have set for themselves. In this case, Jesus is one of those great men. Again with the Argumentum ad Nauseam regarding the Trinity.

For a general response to the so called "problem of evil" click here.

(17) Atheist Attack: Since God created everything, (Col. 1:16, Eph. 3:9, Rev. 4:11, John 1:3), he created evil (Isa. 45:7, Lam. 3:38) and is therefore responsible for all of it.

My Answer: Yes, He created evil. He also warned us to stay away from it. If you do not follow His directions and stay away from it, you are responsible, not Him.

The Atheist Response categorized God as hypocritical and accused him of being sadistic.

My Answer: How is it hypocritical? God does not explain why He created evil but I think it sometimes serves a purpose. (2 Cor. 12:7, John 9:1-3, Psalm 119:71) Yes, I think He does delight in our resistance but not as a spectator. He is in the battle with us. No, He is not a sadistic torturer.

Carlos: The myriad examples I could offer of instances where evil events overpower human resistance are enough to blame its presumed creator.

My Answer: I realize you are angry at God about something that happened, that you did not like. I am sure if I knew what it was, it would invoke sympathy from me. However, it requires more than your disapproval for something to be wrong or evil. A myriad of assertions would not convince me of anything at all. Nor should they convince anyone with a rational mind.

(18) Atheist Attack: "While he (Jesus) was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not at first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, `Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?...woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done...'" (Luke 11:37-44 RSV). Jesus behavior was not socially acceptable so he could not be God.

My Answer: I guess I missed the Dear Abby column the archeologists dug up from 31 AD where we learn the proper etiquette for attending dinner at someone else's house. I wonder what it says about hosts that criticize their guests personal habits as this Pharisee apparently did. Basically what these accusers are saying is that Jesus can not be the Savior because they do not approve of His manners. They set themselves up as the arbiter of mannerly behavior in a culture separated from them by 2000 years. Have you ever watched a movie they made 50 or 60 years ago? They often have customs I do not understand. How much more difficult to understand those of that long ago. But even if they are right about it being rude (and they may be) that does not disqualify Jesus from anything at all. Where does it say that being rude is always sinful? My experience is that it is sometimes exactly what is called for. Judging from the rude responses I have gotten from some of the people on this list, many of them agree. Do not think I am complaining. I do not mind rudeness. I prefer being among manly men who speak their minds. Men like Jesus.

Carlos: We could start with Jesus' admonition against calling thy neighbor 'fool', but for this argument it will suffice to point to the humility that would be expected from the epitome of goodness.

My answer: Your first clause is an argument already offered and answered above. As for the rest of it, Jesus did not do or say anything contrary to the quality of humility. I think you do not understand the term. In what way did He over estimate his own importance? In what way did He exhibit false pride? What is your evidence of any arrogance on His part? Is dying in your place not humble enough for you? What more do you want?

(19) Atheist Attack: Jesus said "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you," but disobeyed the command himself. Matt. 23:17 ('Ye fools and blind"), Matt. 12:34 ("O generation of vipers"), and Matt. 23:27 (". . . hypocrites ... ye are like unto whited sepulchres...")

My Answer: He loved them by telling them the truth. He blessed them by trying to lead them to repentance.

Carlos: Such harsh methods are seldom effective, and often counterproductive.

My answer: Assuming you are right it has nothing to do with the topic. His motives were being questioned, not His methods. However, you are wrong. His methods were very effective. There are and have been hundreds of millions of Christians. That sounds pretty effective to me.

(20) Atheist Attack: The punishment should fit the crime or it is not justice. Nothing done in our limited lifetimes could possibly merit eternal punishment.

My Answer: You may need to consult your dictionary about what the word justice means. I'm not sure how you support the idea that the punishment must fit the crime. Isn't "Let the punishment fit the crime" a line from a Broadway musical? In fact, I'm not even sure what that phrase means in this context. In human affairs I guess it means to be firm enough without being too harsh. As I understand the word justice in the Biblical context it has more to do with righteousness and keeping your promises. The consequences of our sin is hell. I agree this is an unpleasant truth, but you can not deny that you have been warned. Besides what is to be done with someone who will not behave himself and yet will exist forever?

Carlos: "Forever" seems like plenty of chance for repentance. Can't God wait?

My answer: He is waiting. You are not in hell yet, are you?

(21) Atheist Attack: The "blood atonement" of Jesus is immoral, uncivilized and repugnant. Everyone knows blood atonement is an evil idea.

My Answer: Everyone knows no such thing. I know of no culture whose history does not include blood atonement through the sacrifice of animals. I do not like it, but what evidence to you have that it is wrong?

The Atheist Response indicated that Buddhists never practiced blood atonement and wanted to suggest that Christianity was somehow akin to the Aztecs sacrificing human beings.

My Answer: Buddha is a historical person. Before him what sort of worship did the people of his culture practice? And, sad to say, the Aztecs were not alone in sacrificing human beings. The Aztecs also sacrificed animals. What is your point?

Carlos: The evidence is in the cruelty, heartlessness, absurdity and uselessness of employing death as an instrument. That's the same reason why war and death penalty are wrong. There is a quote by Bertrand Russell about the variation of tastes across time, but I couldn't find it. As I remember, it said something to the effect that religious norms made acceptable what people without that religion would have found intolerable.

My answer: A child who has undergone a painful medical procedure, which he did not understand, might use the same string of adjectives to describe his experience. However, strings of adjectives are not evidence, and they are not an argument. I think I recall the quote, but wasn't it someone else that said it? It seemed pretty clever to me, too, until I met a lot of people without religion, who found nothing intolerable about cruelty, heartlessness, absurdity and uselessness.

(22) Atheist Attack: How can God be fair if billions of people who are infants or simply not mentally capable are condemned for not accepting Jesus as their Savior? (John 14:6)

My response: John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'" Matthew 19:14 "But Jesus said, 'Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.'" God does not condemn the innocent.

The Atheist Response quoted Exodus 20:5 "... for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" Christians were accused of deliberately leaving out this part.

My response: I also do not like the editing of the ten commandments. You have misconstrued what is being said. Each of the generations hate Him by their own choice. When they do choose to hate Him, they have to bear the consequences of their parents sins as well. God is warning us that if we sin that our children and grandchildren will suffer from it. It is the nature of the universe. How can you complain when you have been warned? If someone wants to break the chain of hatred and rebellion against God that has been handed down from generation to generation all they have to do is stop hating Him and cease their rebellion.

Carlos: Let's read Exodus 20:5 again: "... I [...] am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children..." God says here that he personally sees to it that children of sinners suffer. Could the text by any more clearer?

My answer: God finds this particular misinterpretation of Exodus 20 to be particularly repugnant. Read Ezekiel 18.

(23) Atheist Attack: The Bible contradicts itself because in one place it says that God does not repent and in another that he does.
Num. 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
Versus
Jonah 3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

My Answer: The same word does not always mean the same thing. Take the word light for instance. Light can mean daytime, starting a fire, a fixture in the ceiling, what our eyes detect, or not heavy. Repent can also mean more than one thing. In Num. 23:19 repentance means sorrow for sins committed. In Jonah 3:10 it means to change your mind.

The Atheist Response was to say that there was something wrong with a god who changed His mind.

Thor: I agree the English is clear enough. The word "usually" in the definition does not mean always. The argument was about a supposed contradiction between two uses of the word repent. You propound a new argument. My answer is, humans are struggling to describe the behavior of an omniscient being in human terms. I gather you do not approve of their methods. What would you suggest as an alternative?

Carlos: First, translators chose "repent" in both cases. Their knowledge of those languages told them that "repent" was the best choice fo expressing the intended sense. If there were any nuance that needed to be made clear in the text, translators would have included modifiers or more precise synonyms to that effect. The contradiction between a repenting and a non-repenting God remains. Second, downplaying the ability of human language to express spiritual truths diminishes the utility of all printed bibles and only damages your case.

My answer: The Hebrew word is nacham. The translators of the KJV Old Testament rendered it comfort 57 times, repent 41 times, comforter 9 times, and ease 1 time. In the NASV we find it translated many more different ways: am sorry, appeased, become a consolation, change, changed, comfort, comforted, comforter, comforters, comforts, console, consolers, consoling, ended, give rest, have compassion, mind, minds, moved to pity, regret, regretted, relent, relented, relenting, relents, relieved, repent, repented, sorry, think, better, and time of mourning. Comfort was the most with 31 times. Repent and repented together were only five times. In Jonah 3:10 NASB has it "relented" as do several other modern versions. A couple translated it as "had mercy." In case you are having trouble assimilating all this information, let me simplify it for you. You do not know what you are talking about.

As far as your characterization of my remarks as "downplaying the ability of human language to express spiritual truths." This is a simple statement contrary to fact. I did nothing of the kind. The human mind can not fully grasp infinity or anything associated with it such as omniscience or omnipresence. Human language has difficulty in the same way whether the infinity being discussed is associated with spiritual truths, mathematical truths, or astronomical truths.

(24) Atheist Attack: How can the Bible be considered moral if it has pornography in it like: "...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you" (2 Kings 18:27). Is that suitable for children?

My Answer: If you do not teach your children how to communicate with you about their bodily functions how are you going to find out if they have medical problems? You are like one of those prudish people who object to medical texts because they have pictures of naked bodies in them. In the proper context dung and piss are not obscene. So, no, I have no problem with them reading the passage. Besides you need to look the word pornography up in the dictionary. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Carlos: 2 Kings 18 speaks about a sieged city whose dwellers are forced by starvation to eat feces. Is that a proper context? It seems rather monstrous.

Similar events are described in history books. Does that make them pornographic or monstrous?

(25) Atheist Attack: It is impossible to obey the 6^th commandment because some translations say thou shalt not kill and other say thou shalt not murder.

My Answer: The underlying Hebrew word can be validly translated either way. Why wouldn't you just obey it both ways?

Carlos: Moi, I have no problems minding my own business without taking anyone's life. But for those who support the legitimacy of standing armies, death penalty, and homicide in self-defense, the implications derived from the exact translation of this commandment is of paramount importance.

The Hebrew word ratsach can be validly translated both ways. The correct understanding must be taken from context. This will be true no matter how many times you bring up the red herring of your pacifism.

(26) Atheist Attack: Jesus is called the son of man in the New Testament but Psalm 146:3 says "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help" and Job 25:6 days "How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm"

My Answer: You neglect range of sense. Just as light may mean a fixture, the rays that illuminate, or the fact that something does not weigh very much, son of man can be taken more than one way.

Carlos: No biblical author bothered to explain what was meant by "son of man". The range of sense for this expression is empty.

My Answer: It is not the only term they did not "bother" to explain. Most books and authors do not "bother" to explain terms they expect their readers to understand. Your argument is pointless and your conclusion does not follow from it at all.

(27) Atheist Attack: Acts 20:35 says "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Paul is a liar. Jesus never said anything like this.

My Answer: John 21:25 makes it clear that the written record of what Jesus said and did is not complete with the Gospel accounts. Paul had access to first hand witnesses to the ministry of Jesus. We know that Jesus did say it because Acts 20:35 reports that He did.

Carlos: Acts 20:35 reports no deeds of Jesus', only Paul's description of them. There is a difference between reporting that a fact occurred and reporting that a guy says it occurred.

Huh? If Luke reported it in his gospel it would be credible, but since he reported it in a later book it is not? Why?

(28) Atheist Attack: The Bible self contradictory. David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer. (This attack was repeated using dozens of various scriptures, all with the same argument, all with the same answer from me.)

My Answer: What great Biblical doctrine depends on how many horsemen there were? None. For that matter what minor Biblical doctrine depends on how many horsemen there were? None. This confirms the testimony of the Bible in two ways. First, if the two books agreed exactly the accusation would be collusion. The accusers would say the books agreed because the authors or copyist conspired to make them agree. Indeed, it would be a valid accusation. What we have here is two witnesses disagreeing on points that do not matter thus confirming the certainty of the ones that do.

The other thing is that the fact that they disagree makes it more convincing that they have been transmitted faithfully in other respects. For thousands of years no scribe has had the disrespect for the Scriptures necessary to correct what amounts to a typo in one or the other of these books. That means we can be confident the book we have is very much like the book that was written. A meaningless minor contradiction confirms rather than denies the testimony of the Bible. This is particularly funny when the Bible attacker has just accused all the ancient copyists of changing things on purpose. If scribes were so free at making changes why didn't they correct these minor discrepancies? Could it be they believed they were working with God's word and were trying to be careful to change nothing? Yes, I think so

The Atheist Response indicated that God was incapable of keeping the Bible from being corrupted.

My answer: Your argument fails on two points. First, you have not established there is any corruption. Second, just because God chooses not to do something does not mean He is not able to do it.

Another Atheist response was to point out that minor errors meant that major errors were therefore possible.

My response: Yes, the minor errors demonstrate there is nothing that keeps there from being major errors in the Bible as well. That is why it is a miracle that there are no major errors.

Another Atheist response was to the doctrine of inerrancy, which I was not claiming. I was claiming infallibility, but I think most of them still do not understand the difference.

My response: What if the printer accidentally left a page out of a Bible. Would that also prove the Bible is not a perfect book? Yes, there are many minor discrepancies to be found in the Bible project. For those who want to imbue it with magical properties that presents a major problem. I'm not one of those people. I have read the Bible a few times. Each time I do, I believe it more rather than less. I gather your experience has been the reverse. I'm sorry this has happened to you but I really do not know how to help you without speculating inappropriately as to why this has been the case for you.

Another Atheist response was to claim that God should have made the Bible unambiguous and could not be misunderstood.

My response: Show me one piece of writing of comparable size and theme to the Bible that is not misunderstood. They did not write in a way that could not be misunderstood because it is impossible.

The Atheist responded that an all powerful God should be able to do anything.

My response: You missed my point entirely. The more mutually related information that is conveyed in language, any language, the more possible ways to construe it there are. The number of possibilities increase geometrically with the length of the piece of writing. That makes it a logical impossibility for a writing of any substantial size about a complex topic such as religious belief to exist that can not be construed in such a way that it can be misunderstood. God can not make a square circle and He can not make a book His enemies can not twist into a trap for the unwary.

Carlos: First, the minor errors demonstrate that whatever god might have been behind the bible project abandoned it. Second, major errors are numerous and evident. Dennis' website is out there for you to confirm it.

My answer: First, because the Bible does not fit your notion of what it ought to be it can not be the work of God. That is just arrogant. The Bible is a collection of testimonies of humans, who have had encounters with the real God. If you insist on projecting your idea that it is supposed to be a magic book, than no, it will not measure up. However, if you take it as what it claims to be, instead of what others have projected on it, it does quite well.

Second, I went to Dennis' website. I picked out ten arguments and refuted them. Dennis got frustrated and accused me of deliberately picking out his weakest points. I let him choose the strongest points. That is when this listing came into being. I can only assume that Dennis knows his own website well enough to pick out his best arguments. Why would I go to his website for more arguments, when I am already talking about the ones its author considers his strongest? However, if you know of some argument or evidence on his site there that is materially different than what we are already discussing, please, bring it up. My review of the site, and the discussions since then, have only revealed repetitive redundancy.

(29) Atheist Attack: 2 Kings 8:26, which says Ahaziah began to rule at age 22, contradicts 2 Chron. 22:2, which says he was 42.

My Answer: There is no doctrine that rests on this minor discrepancy. These minor discrepancies, of which, there are hundreds confirm the Bible's general accuracy in two ways. First, they confirm that the various witnesses did not collude about their testimony. Second, it confirms that the scribes who copied the Bible over the centuries did their best to accurately copy what they found instead of glossing over mistakes.

Carlos: See #28 and: how do you draw the line between "minor" and "major" discrepancies? According to 2 Timothy 3:16, "all" scripture is inspired and useful.

My answer: A major discrepancy would throw a fundamental doctrine into doubt. See www.tntcarden.com/LBC/OurBeliefs.htm. Yes, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." The age at which Ahaziah has no impact on the usefulness of the passage that contains that information. Neither does the number of horsemen David took with him change the usefulness of the passages with that number in them.

(30) Atheist Attack: The Bible made a statement contrary to known scientific fact in 1 Samuel 2:8 "For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them."

My Answer: It is a figure of speech in the middle of some very nice poetry.

Carlos: Poetic license does not include factual error.

My answer: You are right. It is still a figure of speech in the middle of some very nice poetry.

(31) Atheist Attack: Jesus contradicted himself. He said "honor thy father and mother" in Matt. 15:4, but in Luke 14:26 he said "If any man comes to me and does not hate his father and mother ... he cannot be my disciple".

My Answer: It is a figure of speech. We are to honor our parents. But we are to honor God so much more that the honor we have for our parents seems like hate in comparison.

Carlos: Jesus said nothing like that. He clearly said love in one occasion, and clearly said hate in another. He added no modifiers or explanations. You are adding to the text so the contradiction can be ignored.

My answer: You accuse me of projecting my desires on the text, when you are the one who is doing that. You want to make a liar out of Him, so you twist His words. I want to understand Him, so I treat what He says the same way I would what anyone would say. I try to find a construction that makes sense. I assume that the author or speaker is trying to say something that makes sense. I find the way to construe it that does make sense, and ignore the many ways it can be construed, that do not make sense. You do not like Him, so you look for ways that it does not make sense, and then accuse Him of not making sense. As long as there is a way to construe it that does make sense, such an attack is invalid and mean spirited.

(32) Atheist Attack: Matt. 10:34 "I came not to send peace but a sword" contradicts Matt. 26:52 "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword"

My Answer: In Matt 10:34 sword is a figure of speech. In Matt 26:52 sword is meant literally.

Carlos: The shifting nature of the sword does not improve Jesus' ambiguous stance on violence.

My response: Shifting the topic of discussion to your pet peeves, while at the same time making unsupported assertions, in no way demonstrates any inaccuracy in the Bible.

(33) Atheist Attack: Psalm 139:7-11 we are told God is everywhere then how could he come down to earth (Gen. 11:5) or Satan leave His presence (Job 1: 12, 2:7)?

My Answer: It is simply human language struggling to describe the indescribable. How do you go about talking about the actions of an omnipresent being? I'm sorry you disapprove of the these writers' solutions to that problem but until you can suggest a better way these suit me fine.

Carlos: See #23 and: if human languages come short of conveying the meanings God intended, why bother to make a Bible at all?

My answer: Yes, see #23. I have already dealt with this amphiboly in #23 above.

(34) Atheist Attack: The Bible contradicts itself when it says Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons in 2 Sam. 6:23 but that she had 5 sons in 2 Sam. 21:6.

My Answer: 2 Samuel 21:6 says nothing about Michal.

After accusing me of being stupid for not being able to read his mind, the Atheist admitted he meant to say 2 Samuel 21:8. If you read the KJV it says that Michal did have children which does seem to contradict 2 Sam 6:23. Most other versions say it was Merab that has children, not Michal. If you want to defend the KJV you can go to E above. However, it is most likely that the Hebrew for these verses are talking about two different women, as the other English versions have it.

Carlos: First, both chapters are speaking about the daughter of Saul. Second, according to a footnote in my bible, it was the Greek translation which introduced the name Merab.

My response: I do not think so, but you could be right. As I have already said, if you want to understand it as the same woman the response becomes: There is no doctrine that rests on this minor discrepancy. These minor discrepancies, of which, there are hundreds confirm the Bible's general accuracy in two ways. First, they confirm that the various witnesses did not collude about their testimony. Second, it confirms that the scribes who copied the Bible over the centuries did their best to accurately copy what they found instead of glossing over mistakes.

(35) Atheist Attack: The Bible claims that the world's language did not evolve but appeared suddenly and yet the modern science of Linguistics show this to be impossible. (Gen. 11:6-9)

My Answer: No educated Christian holds that languages do not evolve. All you have to do is compare the Greek of the New Testament with Modern Greek. Linguists sort languages in families such as Indo-European and Semitic based on a theorized language of origin for each. Some go further suggesting that all languages have a common root. So how do the accusers know over what period of time the first division took place? It's a theory. What is particularly funny about this accusation is that the Bible makes no claim that world's languages appeared suddenly. All it says is that the builder's of the tower were no longer able to understand one another. The atheist is arguing with a straw man.

Carlos: Genesis 11:1 says that only one language existed prior to the events at Babel. Then, the verses 7-9 say that God confused their languages. If this does not mean sudden creation of tongues, what does it mean?

My response: Genesis 11:7-9 says, "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth."

If you read carefully you will find that the understanding was what was changed, not the sound of the words. Once they were scattered, as He had told them to do in Genesis 9:1, the natural evolution of language led to the many languages we have today. However, none of this has anything to do with the original argument. Even if they did appear suddenly, there is no claim made in the Bible that languages do not evolve, nor is there any way for modern linguistics to say that language did not appear suddenly. If you want to create a new language, it is easy. Raise a group of children together, and seldom speak to them. They will invent a language of their own to speak to each other. The experiment has been repeated accidentally many times by neglectful adults. So far as I know, it has never been done on purpose, nor am I advocating that it should be. The point is that Modern Linguistics can not show that multiple languages did not appear suddenly.

(36) Atheist Attack: 22. In Matt. 15:24 Jesus says, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," but later says to his disciples "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" (Matt 28:19).

My Answer: Jesus went to Israel and his followers went to the nations. Where is the problem here?

Carlos: If all nations were to be preached to, what point was there in restricting Jesus' mission to Israel?

My response: Until Jesus died and was resurrected, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not ready to be preached to others.

(37) Atheist Attack: Heaven can not be a perfect place since wars have occurred there and might again.

My Answer: Where in the Bible does it say heaven is a perfect place? My understanding is that it is a good place. It does say that once the war is over there will be no more death or sadness there.

Carlos: In Genesis, God's plan was ruined once. What prevents something awful from happening again?

My answer: Where does it say that God's plan was ruined? God's plan has not been ruined once, nor will it be.

(38) Atheist Attack: How could a perfect God create a man so imperfect that he sinned.

My Answer: Adam had a choice. He chose poorly. That does not mean that he was less than or different from what God meant to make. I don't think perfect means what you think it means. You may want to consult a good dictionary and notice the wide range of sense this word carries. A being with a free will that could not choose poorly seem like a logical impossibility to me, like a square with out corners. Just because you can form a grammatical sentence does not mean the idea described must be possible.

The Atheist Response claimed that Adam was created with a tendency to make poor choices and that God was a poor Father because He should not have put dangerous fruit within Adam's reach.

My Answer: I guess I am still missing the point. Where does it say that Adam was created with a tendency to make bad choices? What kind of parent protects his children from danger and never teaches them to avoid it on their own? Adam was not a child when he was put in the garden. He was a full grown man who knew better and did it anyway.

Carlos:Adam sinned because he was able to. In other words, the fact that Adam did wrong is evidence that the potential for error existed in him prior to the sin. This means that bad tendencies were already present in him. God made a faulty creation.

I do not think I have seen this many Non Sequitur logical fallacies in a row since I read Ehrman's Bashing the Bible for Bucks Book. "Adam sinned because he was able to." I am able to drive my car over a cliff. I do not. If I did, it would not be a fault in my design. It would be a poor choice. Adam was given free will. Free will would be meaningless if he had no choices. "The fact that Adam did wrong is evidence that the potential for error existed in him prior to the sin." "Error" does not equal "doing wrong." One is a mistake, and accident. The other is an intentional choice to do evil. "This means that bad tendencies were already present in him." No, it does not. It means he had a choice, and he chose to disobey.

However, the whole line of reasoning, such as it is, is just a red herring. Suppose, you are right, and Adam was created with a tendency to sin. How would that mean God is not perfect? I have the ability and knowledge to create flawless computer programs, that do exactly what they are supposed to do. I do this almost every day. That does not mean that I could not, if I so desired, make a flawed computer program. The original atheist attack was to say that Adam's sin proved God was not perfect. Just because God makes a choice of which you disapprove does not make him imperfect.

(39) Atheist Attack: In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." But how could they have been together in paradise that day if Jesus lay in the tomb for three days?

My Answer: Jesus' body was in the tomb. His Spirit was active.

(40) Atheist Attack: In Matt. 19:17 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God") Jesus is denying he is perfect.

My Answer: It is not a denial of perfection. It is a claim of divinity.

Carlos: I read and reread the verse, but I can't see by what rhetoric somersault does your explanation make sense. Please elaborate.

My response: The loaded question! If I explain it, I am demonstrating rhetorical somersaults. If I do not explain it, I am accused of not having an explanation. By what rhetorical somersaults can you possibly understand this to be a denial of perfection? He does not mention perfection. He speaks of goodness.

(41) Atheist Attack: Jesus contradicted the Old Testament in John 3:13 saying "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man..." but in 2 Kings 2:11 it says ". . . and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven".

My Answer: Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind. Jesus ascended by His own power. It is not the same thing.

Carlos: Jesus' words made no such distinction. He said nobody went up, period.

My response: Go for a walk with a friend. You carry him on your back for part of the way, and let him carry you on his back for the other part. If you still can not see the difference between going by your own power, and going by someone else's power, there is nothing I can do for you.

(42) Atheist Attack: Luke 12:4 says "Be not afraid of them that kill the body," but in Matt. 12:14-16, John 7:1, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54, and Mark 1:45 he does not follow his own command but rather shows fearful behavior.

My Answer: Where does it say He was afraid? Fear is only one possible motivation for concealment and avoidance. He simply wanted to pick the time and place for the final confrontation. He was not afraid.

Carlos: Unless you have mastered cross-millennial telepathy, I can't believe you can describe Jesus' inner motives better than the written record plainly shows.

My response: And neither can you. However, unlike you, I have some evidence. He marched into the temple frequently and told the leadership off, or ran the moneychangers out with a couple of ropes tied together. Yep, a real wimp. He mentioned several times that he was going to Jerusalem to die. What a coward. In John 7:8 He said, "Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." Sounds like He had a time table for confrontation to me.

(43) Atheist Attack: The bible contradicts itself when it says salvation is by faith alone (John 3:18,36) but Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments to be saved in Matt. 19:16-18.

My Answer: Yes, anyone who follows all the commandments will be ushered to first place in line to get into heaven. The Bible makes that clear everywhere. It also makes it clear that Jesus is the only one who will ever be successful doing that. If we put our faith in Him, he will take us with Him to eternal life.

Carlos: If fulfilling all the commandments is beyond human capabilities, why did Jesus recommend doing just so?

I said they would not be successful. I did not say it was beyond human capabilities. If it was beyond human capabilities God would not be just in holding us accountable. Not doing it, and not being capable of it are two different things.

The arguments here are lengthy and may be found on two other pages:

(44) Click here for answer to the accusation that miracles do not have multiple witnesses in the New Testament.

(45) Click here for answer to the supposition that miracles are impossible.

Carlos: 44) and 45) deal with what you call "anti-supernatural bias" (I'm yet to find a funnier misnomer for good sense). Mr. Carden, your decision to interpret unexpected and surprising events in your life as evidence of God's hand does not make them cease to be anecdotal evidence. A much stronger case for the existence of the miraculous will need to be made.

My response: Here we have an Appeal to Ridicule and a demand for infinite evidence. I have observed miracles. Millions of others have as well. You can take a skeptical view, bury your head in the back of the cave, and demand more and more evidence forever. I have already explained at great length that miracles by their very nature can not be reproduced in the lab. You can laugh at me, and call me a liar all you like, but that convinces me of nothing. It proves nothing, except that you are arrogant and close minded. You have yet to offer any alternate explanation for any specific miracle to which I have testified. You have characterized them all as unexpected and surprising. If they were not by God's hand, how did they happen?

(46) Atheist Attack: "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under,...." (Matt. 2:16). The Tetrarch Herod was not a King. There are almost 40 chapters in Josephus about him. This massacre is not mentioned. Nor is mentioned elsewhere by any other historian. With full grown sons already why would Herod be afraid of a newborn baby taking away his rule?

Yes, Herod was under control of the Romans. They probably did call him Tetrarch but I think he still called himself a king, as did the Jews. If you think 40 chapters covers all the important events of a man's life you have never attempted to write your autobiography let alone the biography of an important public figure. Arguing from a negative does not carry weight with me. For many years the "scholars" ridiculed the Bible because it talked about Hittites. They stopped the ridicule when archeologists dug them up. It was his sons Herod was protecting. It was his dynasty he was protecting not his rule.

Carlos: I don't have the time to do the full research this deserves, but my 2000 Encarta CD-ROM says, "The primary sources of information about the Hittites came from Egyptian records, notably those of the 19th Dynasty, and from certain passages in the Bible." In that order. Re Herod, whatever he was defending, an infant born to a poor family is still innocuous.

My response: It does not take an in depth knowledge of archeology to know that the Bible has been available for public inspection for centuries, and that the records of 19th Dynasty of Egypt were either buried under the sand for most of those centuries, or written in indecipherable characters in plain view. You want to imply that I am a liar without troubling yourself to look in to it with the "full research this deserves." You want to subtly suggest that no reputable scholar doubted the existence of the Hittites, but not enough to be accused of being wrong, when it is shown that you are.

"An infant born to a poor family is still innocuous," is true. However, a prophesy of visiting magi from the east would stir Herod's superstitious fears.

(47) Atheist Attack: In all the ancient writings only biased Christian writers clearly mention Jesus of Nazareth.

My Answer: That depends on what you mean by "clearly" and "biased." I'm sure that there are none that would satisfy you. If you discount the Christian writers just because they believe what they wrote then you will not be convinced by any evidence. But even if there really were none, what is your point? Are you trying to say that a guy that never existed started a major religion?

There was an uninteresting exchange with them that ended with this:

My answer: I'm not sure Hinduism really qualifies as a major religion in the context of identifying whether its founders were real or not, since it does not make such a claim. It is more of a group of various people with a hodge podge of beliefs held together by a mutual consensus not to argue with each other about it very much. However, I see no reason to argue about this point. I'll amend my statement; "As far as I know, all major religions which claim to have a founder can also make a reasonable case, that their founder was real."

Carlos: Still, no pagan source mentions Jesus. Some texts make a passing comment on how his followers were doing, but this does not help prove the man breathed and walked.

My response: Do you really believe that Jesus did not exist? The evidence for His existence is extremely overwhelming. There is no sensible reason to believe He did not exist. Interestingly your argument contradicts itself. "No pagan source mentions Jesus" vs. "Some texts make a passing comment on how his followers were doing." If Jesus was fictitious, why were they called 'followers'?"

No early Christian or pagan source mentions Buddha, but I do not doubt his existence.

(48) Atheist Attack: The Bible has scientific errors in it when it says the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:13,19), hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:5-6), and some fowl (Lev. 11:20-21) and insects (Lev. 11:22-23) have four legs.

My Answer: Hebrew names for animals are extremely difficult to translate. Probably these are simply translated wrong or refer to species we know nothing about. As far as a bat being a bird it is simply saying that it can fly. The distinction you are talking about has to do with an arbitrary classification system invented by biologists in the last few hundred years. How could the Bible contradict that when it had not even been invented yet?

Carlos: Re translations, see #23. Re classifications, you are right that biologists invented taxonomy, but God is supposed to have created the natural order that taxonomy describes. What is meant by "bird" is clear enough. In Leviticus it's God himself who is speaking, yet he can't get it right when describing his own creation.

My response: Your remarks regarding translations in #23 above are not appropriate here. In 23 the meaning of the Hebrew word we were discussing was not in doubt. The rest of your argument is simply repeating what has already been said immediately above and answered by me immediately above.

(49) Atheist Attack: The Bible says there were flying serpents (Isaiah 14:29, 30:6) which is known to be untrue.

My Answer: Paleontologists think there were flying lizards which could be what is meant in Isaiah. Even if it is not, they dig up new species all the time. How do those who accuse the Bible of errors of fact know that there were no flying serpents at the time of Isaiah that have since gone extinct? They are arguing from the absence of evidence in a field that science makes no claim to have completed its study. It is also, possible this is a figure of speech, that symbolically represents Satan or his demons.

Carlos: Let's put these flying serpents together with Leviathan and Behemoth in the missing monster department. Seriously, there's a grave problem with a book when readers can't even have a clue on what on earth is meant.

My response: The argument here is about flying serpents. You have gone rather far afield. Because the names of a few animals are difficult, you want to characterize the whole book as not understandable. That is just dishonest.

(K) OTHER UNREFUTED ARGUMENTS</P>

(50) I read a book called Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman and wrote some notes that showed it was illogical. These arguments were never answered except by appeals to the author's so-called expertise and unsupported allegations of my ignorance. [Click here to view my arguments.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(51) An atheist was claiming there were no absolute laws that would apply in all situations. He challenged me to come up with just one.

My answer: I'll give you two absolute laws that are good for all people, places, and times in the universe. Matthew 22:35-40 "One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." NASV

Carlos: In all times? Really? Let's speculate. Just as a rhetoric exercise, would it do any good for people already condemned in hell to pray to god or start loving their fellow damned?

My response: You do not believe in hell. Why are you bringing it up?

(52) There was, of course, an attempt to use the Documentary Hypothesis to attack the credibility of the Old Testament.

My response should make it clear what the nature of what I was responding to. Basically they were saying that the Old Testament never even began to make it to written form until around a 1000 B.C. and that even the oral tradition on which it was based did not go back any further than 1800 B.C.

I'm not sure what the point here is. "All but..." seems to suggest you are stating a majority opinion. Did somebody take a vote? "All but the most conservative scholars..." I wonder how you came by that information. Did somebody do a poll? Something like this, "Dear sir, please tell us what pigeon hole we should put you in and then tell us what you think about the age of the scriptures." My perspective suggests a different categorization. Careless scholars and those with an anti-supernatural bias give the Old Testament very young dates for authorship or compilation in no uncertain terms. Superstitious scholars and those who want to imbue the Bible with magical qualities insist they know the Bible was written in its current form much earlier. Of course, I haven't done a poll either. I speak from a limited perspective and from my perspective the jury is still out.

It is a thorny problem and one with no easy answers. When I began to review the issue I soon discovered the most interesting arguments lapse into Hebrew. I have only just begun my study of Hebrew so the best stuff is still beyond my grasp. The evidence I do understand is ultimately disingenuous or ambiguous. When I tracked the footnotes of those claiming the latest dates back to their sources I most often found an argument something like this; "The passage in question speaks about events known to have happened at such and such a date. Therefore it must have been written after that." Of course, the passage in question was prophecy. It is a combination of group think, circular reasoning, and anti-supernatural bias.

The best arguments made for later dates come from linguistics. Languages are generally believed to change over time in predictable ways. Apparently when the Old Testament is viewed in this way the relative ages of the various books become obvious. Job is the oldest and Daniel is the youngest. When attaching actual dates, however, the evidence is not compelling. The rate at which languages change over time is by no means a settled matter. That various ones have changed at different rates at different times is a known fact but the causes of rate change is hotly debated. The fact that the Old Testament is just about the only surviving example of ancient Hebrew makes comparisons to other writings with known dates impossible.

The idea that the Old Testament existed in oral form for 800 years before being put on paper seems indefensible to me. They knew how to write, why wouldn't they? Even if the dates for the current form are correct how would that prove it was in oral form before that? It is as if someone a thousand years from now looks at a New American Standard Bible and concludes from the fact that it is written in 20^th century English that the King James Version did not exist.

Likewise the idea of late compilation does not seem to fit the facts. Why compile Genesis and Exodus from several accounts while leaving Leviticus and Deuteronomy separate and intact? Why not either compile them all or leave them all separate?

Finally, what if everything you said is true. So what? Thirty-eight hundred years is still pretty old. Close to a hundred generations of our forefathers believed it was a truth worth preserving. Why don't you?

One of the Atheists responded that his ancestors were uninvolved in the Bible project. He baited me with a question about whether he should believe in the pagan god of his not too distant ancestors.

My answer: I think it would be a mistake for you to reject the gods of your ancestors without investigating their validity. Your parents and grand parents have a strong natural motivation to pass on to you the truth as they understand it. You will meet few other people so motivated towards your well being. Rejecting what they offer without giving it a fair hearing would just be plain stupid. I do understand why I do not worship Jupiter, Osiris and Krishna and it does not help me understand your rejection of the One True God. Before I ever heard of the Bible I was introduced to the Norse, Greek and Roman pantheons. I remember how disappointed I was to learn that the god Thor was a stupid oaf that won the day by physical strength rather than mental acuity. I much preferred Minerva and Athena, goddesses of wisdom. Although I did not call out to them by name, in retrospect I think I worshipped them until I turned instead to Jesus Christ.

Carlos: The dedication all those people showed in preserving and transmitting the biblical text does not add to its veracity. The Hindu Vedas are older books than the Old Testament, and they have survived to this day among a strong community of believers. Applying your argument would require us to consider Hinduism truer than Judaism.

My response: Again you go far afield from the original argument and put words in my mouth that I never said. I never said the older, the more true. The atheist in question was trying to move the date of the composing of the Old Testament until after the events it foretells. He was wrong.

I have traced my ancestors back for hundreds of years. Some of them arrived on this continent in the 1600's from Europe. Some of them were already here when the Europeans arrived. Some of them were still in central Europe in the 1900's. Some of them followed the White Stag from the steppes of Asia to Europe. Some of them probably dwelled in the sands of Northern Africa. Some of them hid their Jewish ancestry to escape persecution. None of them came from India. None of them were Hindus. I have no interest in the Hindu Vedas. I gave them a once over and engaged in conversations with some Hindus. Nothing there. You do not think so either. Why do you bring them up?

(53) Of course, the formation of the canon had to be attacked.

The list of books to be included in the New Testament was not decided by a vote of a few bishops who wanted to stifle the "competition."

The criteria used to determine if a book was "canonical" was based on several things. One was how convinced they were that it was indeed a book written close to the time period either by eye witnesses or by people who directly interviewed eye witnesses. If they were convinced of Apostolic authorship that was a big plus. If the author was not an apostle he was required to have hung out with an Apostle. (Like Luke being a follower of Paul) Another compelling piece of evidence for them was, when the curtain of relentless persecution was raised, how widespread was the book in use by Christians across the world. In order to be considered for inclusion it had to be already, for quite some time, being read aloud in worship services across the empire. So, in a sense, it wasn't really a vote as much as it was an acknowledgement of a fait accompli.

The Gospels of James and Thomas did not come close to measuring up on any basis. I've not done much research on the Gospel of James but I'm convinced Thomas was written at about the same time as they were trying to determine the canon. One of the most interesting things is that when the voting was taking place Christianity had already spilled out of the Roman empire and the "orthodox" church could no longer really control the canon. However, most Christians beyond their authority adopted the same 27 books. 24 of the books were never even controversial unless you count Marcion and his followers. (Marcion would have restricted the Canon to 10 (or 11?) books. If memory serves: Luke, Acts, and 8 or 9 of Paul's epistles. Fact is, even if he had won out, orthodox Christian doctrine would be pretty much intact.) But as it turned out, these 24 books passed muster the first time, and every time, without a whimper. 2nd Peter, Jude, & Hebrews were questioned, and another book, called Shepherd of Hermas, almost made it in. Hebrews had the problem of there being little agreement as to who was the author. I forget what the issues were with the others.

Carlos: Priests at the time weren't sure themselves what to let in and what to leave out. This happened with both testaments. Given the great amount of books that were rejected, we can learn a lot figuring out the historic significance and political motives of such decisions.

My response: "Great amount of books that were rejected." There are a great many books in the world. If the fact that they exist, but are not included in the accepted canon, qualifies them as being "rejected" then, yes, there were a great number of books rejected. However, if they first had to be considered before they qualify as being "rejected," the number was not large.

You question the motives of the people involved. Why? On what evidence, do you question their motives.

It seems pretty clear to me that you do not know much about the formation of the canon, and believe some propaganda you read about it somewhere because you hate the God of the Bible so much, that anything negative said about Him or His book sounds convincing to you, whether it is rational or not.

I have fallen into this trap for the last time. I thought since it was Carlos that sent this to me that it would have a few good arguments in it. I found none. From now on, I will add nothing to this web site unless it is at least free of logical fallacies.

UNREFUTED ARGUMENTS | UNANSWERED QUESTIONS | TRICKS | ANTI-SUPERNATURAL BIAS | PROBLEM OF EVIL | EHRMAN | HOME