Cold Case Christianity: Bible contradictions and how not to deal with them

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot:
“The Bible is full of contradictions”Posted: 28 Jan 2019 01:10 AM PST

Our “Quick Shot” series offers brief answers to common objections to the Christian worldview.

Leaving us to wonder what you'd think of atheist bible criticisms that were equally brief.

Each response is limited to one paragraph. These responses are designed to (1) answer the objection as concisely as possible, (2) challenge the objector to think more deeply about his or her claim, and (3) facilitate a “gospel” conversation. In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, Quick Shot: “The Bible is full of contradictions.”

Response #1:
“I hear that a lot, can you show me what you’re talking about?

 Sure:

King David had several wives and servants and a fireplace to keep him warm while he reigned as king.  So any story about him curing his chills by sleeping next to the scantily clad body of the prettiest virgin in town, you know perfectly well that story contradicts reality and is nothing but a cover-up for a king who couldn't keep his pants zipped.  Now read 1st Kings 1:1-4 and thank the Holy Spirit for moving through an atheist like me to make you see the light.

Does God love the workers of iniquity (John 3:16) or hate them (Psalm 5:5)?
(Psalm 5:5 doesn't say God hates the works of sin, it says he hates the "workers").

Do good works have something to do with the basis of salvation (Matthew 5:17-20 ff, Luke 1:6), or do good works have nothing to do with the basis of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 11:6)?  Dispensationalism would hardly have come into existence if the harmony between Jesus and Paul's doctrines were anywhere near "obvious".

Is God love (1st John 4:16) or does God threaten women with rape (Isaiah 13:15-17)?  Gee, because threatening a women with rape is not the logical opposite of "love" why doesn't YOUR "love" ever threaten women with rape?  Are you ungodly?

I could not get to the rest of Wallace's article if I degraded the discussion into a back-and-forth with every trifling asshole inerrantist in creation who thinks they can "harmonize" these contradictions.  Feel free to reply.

Wallace continues:

How familiar are you with the Bible to begin with?

 Very, I'm writing the book that lays modern Christian apologetics to rest, permanently.  It will probably run about 700 pages.    Therein I accuse the bible-god of approving of rape and pedophilia, I show that the differences between the Synoptics are best accounted for under a theory of progressive fiction, and that there are so many real problems with the biblical testimony to Jesus' resurrection, that we can be reasonable to view the doctrine to be false on the merits, no need to invoke a Humean smart-bomb against miracles.  My book includes my rebuttals to arguments made by Mike Licona, William Lane Craig, Steve Hays, J. Warner Wallace, Frank Turek, and other "apologists".

Have you examined all the alleged ‘contradictions’?

 Yes, and I have detailed scholarly arguments for why the harmonization scenarios given by Archer and other inerrantists are wrong or less likely to be true than the contradiction-theory.

I’m happy to look at something with you, and if I don’t have an answer for you, I’ll do some research and get back to you.

One wonders whether Christians think the "I'll get back to you" attempt at objectivity would be objective if employed by an atheist bible critic. Wouldn't you, the Christian, merely insist the atheist giving such response is merely intent on employing the clever tricks of the devil to get away from the truth?

But, there’s a difference between a contradiction and a variation. Just because two people report something differently, it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a true contradiction.

 It doesn't have to "necessarily" be a contradiction.  The alleged contradictions arise from ancient historical testimony.  If it is reasonable to believe two such statement are contradictory, that complies with the standard canons of historiography.  If you think you escape the contradiction merely because harmonization scenarios of some sort or other will always be logically possible harmonization scenarios, then you are prioritizing apologetics over proper historical method.  I've been challenging Christian apologists for years to hit me with the biggest authentic contradictions they can possibly find in Mormon scriptures and Mormon history.  Under Christian standards, such contradictions aren't necessarily real because of how easy it is to conjure up logically possible harmonization scenarios. 

By the way, Wallace, juries in courtrooms are tasked with deciding whether somebody's harmonization scenario to account for an inconsistency, is truthful or just a clever ruse. So since you always apply court room standards to biblical issues, then you are required to admit that the jury deciding your claims, a jury that includes atheists, are not intellectually, legally or morally bound to automatically trash any claimed contradiction merely because you showed the contradiction wasn't absolutely proven.

If the apologist says "so it depends on whose theory on the alleged statements are more likely to be true, not merely whether harmonization is logically possible", that's an apologist who is starting to see the light.

When you and I return home and tell our family members about this conversation, I bet we’ll highlight different aspects of what was said.

 And sometimes people highlight certain parts of their previous discussions because they are dishonestly biased and wish to give the hearer a misleading impression of what actually happened.  Funny how you don't highlight the obvious fact that people can also be dishonest.

Those differences might appear to be contradictory, but they’re actually the kinds of variations we would expect when two people have varying interests and perspectives.

 And since two different eyewitnesses have never contradicted each other in the entire history of earth, it should be obvious that bible inerrancy is safe harbor by logical necessity.

Have you considered the fact that the Bible writers were real people who had personal interests and perspectives that may have shaped how they reported their observations?”

 Have you considered the fact that the Bible writers were real people who had personal interests and perspectives that may have motivated them to spin the historical facts in ways that give the reader a false impression of what happened?

Response #2:
“I’m not sure why you wouldn’t expect the Bible authors (like those who wrote the New Testament gospels), to report things in precisely the same way.

 Then let me clear up your confusion:  If you merely said the bible was written by people, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  But since you claim the bible writers were inspired by God and never contradicted each other despite it's many authors speaking on common subjects of history and theology, you are insisting on a state of affairs for the bible that you admit is not true about any other book in the world, thus putting yourself under the burden to make a prima facie case for the inerrancy of the bible before anybody is placed under any intellectual compulsion to think the biblical authors were any different in objectivity than the Egyptians or the Hittites.

Why wouldn’t there appear to be contradictions?

 If God himself were speaking to you, should you expect to see apparent contradictions?

This is the nature of all reliable eyewitness testimony. Witnesses to a crime (or other significant event) never seem to agree on details. That’s why detectives start by separating eyewitnesses as early as they can. They don’t want the witnesses to line up their stories and report the same thing.

Some biblical authors did try to line up their stories and report the same thing, and they failed miserably with a showing of many inconsistencies best explained under a theory of progressive fiction.  It's called the Synoptic Problem.

Detectives understand that there will appear to be differences in the witness accounts, but they know it’s their job to investigate the claims to understand why these differences exists – even when all the witnesses are accurately reporting the events. Have you ever thought about approaching the Bible authors in a similar way?”

 No.  The biblical authors are not alive, cannot be interviewed to explain why they phrased things in the words they chose, and now we are stuck forever with reading their words through our imperfect eyes and trying to decide which explanatory theory to account for the words is most likely to be true.



Whatever your "quick shot" is, it doesn't appear to be sniper fire, and doesn't appear to be a tiny glass full of hard liquor.  I won't be losing any sleep about perfectly consistent bibles anytime soon.  Cheers.

Cold Case Christianity: How Can You Trust Christianity Is True When There Are So Many Unanswered Questions?

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: 

How Can You Trust Christianity Is True When There Are So Many Unanswered Questions?

Posted: 25 Jan 2019 01:00 AM PST

As a Christian, I have many unanswered questions. The more I study the Christian worldview, the larger my list seems to grow.

Which should tell you something more than simply that God's ways are mysterious.

While essential truths are easier to identify from scripture, there are many non-essential (and more ambiguous) features of Christianity.

 I reject this modern fundie concept of "essential doctrine", as if some doctrines in the bible are more important than others.  The fools who think eschatology is "non-essential doctrine" apparently didn't notice how important the author of Revelation thought such topic was.  He was inspired by God, allegedly to set forth the end time events with all the fervor and ugency that he did.  Nowadays most Christians consider eschatology something that doesn't become important until they find themselves lonely at Starbucks with a laptop and nothing better to do.  Maybe knock on heaven's door and tell Mr. Stupid-in-the-Sky that because he can simply wave his magic wand to get people to believe whatever he wants them to believe (Ezra 1:1), he has no excuse to go around bitching about sinners disobeying him).

The unfathomable aspects of God’s nature typically leave us in awe and without adequate explanation.

And if what you describe fails coherent explanation, there is no intellectual compulsion on the hearers, whatsoever, to believe that crap.  That's why it reeks of sheer stupidity to be dogmatic about this mystical garbage.

To make matters worse, the ancient claims and historical details described in the New Testament are sometimes too remote to accurately verify. As a result, I’m often left with questions in places where I would rather have clarity and evidential certainty. How can we trust Christianity is true when there are so many unanswered questions?

 Were you directing that question to skeptics, or Christians?  If to Christians, then your brand of "apologetics" is weak. Gee, how much effort would it take to get somebody who already believes your religion, to feel confident that it can be defended?  Likely far less than the effort needed to convince a non-Christian.  you are just as weak as James Patrick Holding, who does apologetics for no other reason than to convince Christians their faith can be intellectually defended.  That job is much easier than the other apologetics task of convincing unbelievers to convert.

After a long career as a cold-case detective, I’ve learned to get comfortable with unanswered questions.

One has to wonder whether you'd respect the same attitude coming from an atheist detective writing critiques of Christianity

By the way, Wallace, how many times did your reliance on rank empiricism help you solve crimes, and how many times did your reliance on sheer power of prayer help you solve crimes?  If God doesn't want to interact with us directly the way other people do, are you quite sure God desires "fellowship" with us? 

How about if your human friend Joe says he desires to personally "fellowship" with you, but for your entire life, he has refused all of your requests for personal communication, and has instead told you that you can discern what he has to say by asking questions toward the ceiling, then go around for the next week making your own interpretation of any "coincidences" you find to be attention-getting?  FUCK YOU.

In fact, I’ve never investigated or presented a case to a jury that wasn’t plagued with a number of mysteries.

But those mysteries probably didn't involve spirits taking on bodies...or gods coming down to us in the likeness of men...or invisible evil persons causing us to commit crimes...or alibis that depend on telepathy or remote viewing...or people rising from the dead...or hundreds of people being cured of incurable diseases.

As much as I wish it wasn’t so, there is no such thing as a perfect case; every case has unanswered questions.

Then Christians need to learn that the presence of unanswered questions doesn't intellectually compel atheist bible critics to assent that "god did it", even if such conveniently quick-fix sounds appealing to the Christian.

In fact, when we seat a jury for a criminal trial, we often ask the prospective jurors if they are going to be comfortable making a decision without complete information. If potential jurors can’t envision themselves making a decision unless they can remove every possible doubt (and answer every possible question), we’ll do our best to make sure they don’t serve on our panel.

 Good idea. You might do a seminar on why absolute proof is neither possible nor necessary.  Might be a shocking wake up call to the vast majority of "Christians" out there trying to do "apologetics" and who consistently mistake their cocky confidence with actual reality.  The existence of trees is "obvious".  Jesus' resurrection from the dead is nothing close to obvious.  Isn't it nice how Sunday churches enable large crowds of likeminded people to get away from reality and create their own happy little bubble?

Every case is imperfect; there are no cases devoid of unanswered questions. Every juror is asked to make a decision, even though the evidential case will be less than complete. As detectives and prosecutors, we do our best to be thorough and present enough evidence so jurors can arrive at the most reasonable inference. But, if you need “beyond a possible doubt,” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” you’re not ready to sit on a jury. The standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” for a good reason; no case is evidentially complete; no case maker can eliminate every possible reservation.

 But Mr. Wallace....what you've never done is demonstrate why the average person walking down the street should impose the same bar on historical evidence that America's courts impose in criminal cases.

For example, the bar in civil lawsuits is "preponderance of the evidence", which is something less than "beyond a reasonable doubt".  How would a person "go wrong" if they evaluated attacks on god and the bible under the "preponderance of evidence" standard? Gee, if we compare the number of miracle-claims that have been confirmed true, against the number of miracle claims that have been successfully debunked, which number do you suppose would be higher?  Or did you suddenly discover that number comparisons are always unfair and from the devil?

You also don't tell the viewers that in civil lawsuits, the Plaintiff wins by default if the Defendant refuses to reply.  Should bible critics apply that standard...and announce their victory against any Christian who responded to their challenge with silence? Hey, you created this "use-court-standards-to-evaluate-truth-claims-in-the-bible" marketing gimmick.  Still interested?

You also don't tell the viewers that in civil lawsuits, the Plaintiff often makes a motion for summary judgment, wherein they argue that one of their factual or legal contentions are so well-founded that no reasonable jury could possibly disagree with them....in which case if the Court agrees, that factual or legal contention will be decided by the Court as a matter of law, the other party loses on that particular point, and the jury will be instructed that the court has already found that matter to be true as a matter of law, and they are not to discuss whether it is true, but only presume that it is in fact, true. Would you recommend that atheist bible critics adopt a similar standard?

You also don't tell the jury that very often in courts a party who had a decent argument, loses the right to give such argument because they did not file their evidence with the court within the time prescribed by the Court.  Would you recommend that atheist bible critics declare victory every time their opponents fail to present counter evidence within the time-window the critic sets up?  Or did you suddenly discover that the ways things get done in courts of law isn't always the best way things should get done in the real world?

Gee, if there are so many realities about America's court system and its rules that would be unfair to apply to the issue of the bible, maybe your marketing gimmick really is just a cheap thrill and nothing serious?

Christians, like jurors, need to get comfortable with unanswered questions. Every worldview has them. As an atheist, I struggled to answer a number of critical questions from my materialistic, naturalistic worldview: How did the universe originate?

 Then you were a stupid atheist, because to ask where the universe came from, is linguistically the same as asking where shoes come from...you are already presupposing the limited nature of the universe in the question by assuming it did indeed have a point of origin, when in fact no cosmologist or astrophysicist will tell you the finite nature of the universe is a settled matter.  Some versions of the big bang set forth a series of bangs and crunches which extend forever into the infinite past.  And the general question of the universe possibly being of infinite size in all directions is left quite open.   Dr. Frank Turek seems to make a lot of Christians happy with his Big Bang argument wherein he pretends the bang was started by a  necessarily spaceless, timeless imamterial being, but the endless bang/crunch model and the theory of the universe being infinite in all directions, continues to loom and hasn't been successfully rebutted...and is consistent with all evidence.

Why does the universe appear fine-tuned?

 Then you must have been a really stupid atheist, because the fine-tuning argument is total bullshit.  You may as well say grandma's attic was "fine-tuned" to generate mold, or that the air in a tire was "fine tuned" to create the hole it did when it escape from the tire during a blowout.  Not at all...stuff happens that way for purely naturalistic reasons.  If it's obvious that applying freezing temperature to water automatically causes it to become more complex at the molecular level, then apparently this feature of reality is just how nature works, and your predictable question "but why does nature work that way" is a non-issue because you don't have any completely chaotic condition-set to compare this universe to, so that you can pretend this universe exhibits traits of intelligent design that are absent from non-intelligently designed sets.   And if your beliefs are true, than absolutely everything is the product of intelligent design, so that you have no genuinely non-designed patterns or realities to compare this universe to and pretend that the differences are significant.  You actually don't know what a "non-designed" universe would look like...do you.

How did life begin in the universe?

If the universe is of infinite age, then every reality it currently exhibits was likely also a reality extending into the infinite past.  No difference in saying the universe has a limitless supply of life, than in saying the universe has an infinite supply of carbon.

Why does biology appear designed?

 Then you were a really stupid atheist, because atheists are not bothered by the design of biological systems.  Design?  Yes.  Intelligent?  No.  Get the book here.

How did our immaterial minds emerge from the material universe?

Then you must have been a really stupid atheist, because the mind is not immaterial, and the arguments for mind-body dualism are total bullshit.  Yes, I've reviewed such arguments, including The Soul: How We Know It’s Real and Why It Matters, J. P. Moreland (Moody 2014).  Feel free to challenge my physicalist understanding of the mind whenever you have the time.  Or tell yourself god doesn't want you to deal with critics personally but only to continue selling Jesus with clever marketing gimmicks.

Wallace, I'll grant that you might be one-step above Josh McDowell.  But that step is very short.  You are not a threat to atheist bible critics because

a) you never debate them, at least as far as i can tell in a google search, and
b) your apologetics never take the form of convincing skeptics, but only of making Christians feel better.

You don't threaten atheist bible critics' beliefs that way, any more than the Mormon teacher who makes Mormons feel better about the historically valid basis for the Book of Mormon, is doing anything to convince non-Mormons that the Book of Mormon is authentic.  It obviously takes far less to convice current believers to stay put, than to convince unbelievers to convert.  Amen?

How can I explain free will and objective moral truth?

Then you must have been a really stupid atheist, because freewill doesn't exist, and there is no such thing as objective moral truth.  There is no reason to think the mind is "free" from the laws of physics, which would mean it is subject to the laws of physics.  And you cannot demonstrate that objective moral truths exist, the morals most humans agree to they agree to solely because they share the same mammalian brain that prioritizes protection, survivial and thriving of individual groups.

And you'll die a quick intellectual death if you try to say your god is the basis for why people think rape is wrong.  Your god admits in Isaiah 13:15-17 to causing men to rape women.  Your god tells Israel in Leviticus 21:9 to burn preteen prostitutes alive.  Sure is funny that humanity's common moral beliefs are only represented in a handful of biblical morals, and we reject the rest out of sheer disgust.

Are you quite sure you are properly prepared to defend your "that wasn't meant to be followed today" theory from my attacks? 

As a philosophical naturalist, my answers to these questions were little more than subjective speculation.

I think I'm starting to see why you became a Christian. 

My worldview was incomplete at the most foundational level. I had many unanswered questions, yet hung on to my atheistic perspective in spite of these mysteries. Every one of us clings to a worldview for which we have less than complete information. Every one of us has a series of unanswered questions.

If we cannot fault Christians for hanging onto their world view despite unanswered questions, you cannot fault atheist bible critics for hanging onto their worldview despite unanswered questions.  Fair is fair. 

All of us have to step out from the end of an evidence trail to a place of decision. That step across our unanswered questions is sometimes called a 'leap of faith'.

As a theist and as a Christian, I am far more comfortable with my unanswered questions than I used to be as an atheist.

 With a big daddy in the sky ready to correct every yucky that comes along, I can understand your sense of comfort.

My questions are fewer and less foundational.

Atheists who become Mormons could testify similarly, but you'd scream they've taken a turn for the worse.  Apparently, choosing which religion is right constitutes playing with your eternal fate.  You cannot blame the atheist who says its probably safer to persist in the error of atheism, than to latch onto and start promoting what could turn out to be theological heresy.

The existence of many competing forms of Christianity, and the existence of fundamentalists who say you'll go to hell for theological heresy, provides rational warrant to atheists to steer clear of the entire spiritual mess.  Whatever trouble they are currently in, the odds are very good they can only make things worse if in their imperfect way they end up siding with the wrong form of Christianity.  Amen?   Well gee, if even genuinely born-again Christians can get theology wrong, how could you dare pretend that us imperfect sinners can become confident, in less than 50 years of graduate-level bible study, which version of Christianity is true? 

What, are you not aware that very smart intellectual Christian scholars have been pointing the heretical finger at each other for centuries?  Isn't the atheist bible critic doing less damage to himself by choosing to think that buying drinks for girls at the bar is "less dangerous" than studying the bible?

How hot will hell be for atheists who buy drinks for women at bars?

How hot will hell be for atheists who convert to the wrong form of Christianity? 

FUCK YOU.

They are related more to non-essential issues than critical, core claims.

How essential is it to confess the bodily resurrection of Jesus? Gee, is there some intellectual obligation I'm under that requires me to fully evaluate the Geisler v. Harris debate and then choose which of them got it right?  That's funny, I never noticed such obligation before.  See here.

How essential is it to recognize the Catholic view of justification as heresy?  Gee, is there some intellectual obligation I'm under requiring me to fully evaluate all arguments back and forth between Catholic and Protestant scholars about how to interpret Paul's doctrine of "justification", and then choose which of them got it right?  See here.

(how long do you suppose the non-Christian must evaluate Catholic and anti-Catholic arguments before such person could be correctly said to have a comprehensive understanding of the issues sufficient to justify their drawing conclusions about the matter?  Now what? does the non-Christian have an "obligation" to attain this level of knowledge about Christianity's in-house disputes?).

How essential is "salvation"? After all, aren't there Christian bible scholars who take the liberal position that everybody is going to be saved?  How long must I evaluate this liberal v. conservative debate, before I've attained sufficiently comprehensive knowledge of both sides so as to rationally justify starting to draw conclusions about it?  Two days?  10 years?  You don't know, correct?

How essential is the Trinity?  How long must I evaluate everything said by Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, Jesus-Only Pentecostals, and review the pre-Trintarian crap from the Council of Nicaea, before I will be rationally warranted to make a decision?  Doesn't the fact that representatives of these interests hold their unique viewpoint their entire life, suggest that such a course of investigation is not likely to yield reasonably confident answers?

The evidence I have points me in a given direction, and the gap between what I have and what I would like is much shorter than it used to be.

 If you had been a smarter atheist, you wouldn't have asked uninformed questions and persisted in the kind of ignorance that Christianity pretends to have answers for.

All of us have to step out from the end of an evidence trail to a place of decision. That step across our unanswered questions is sometimes called a “leap of faith”. As a Christian, I don’t have to leap blindly and jump all that far. Yes, I still have questions, but I have more than enough evidence to make a reasonable decision. I’ve come to trust Christianity is true, even with a few unanswered questions.

Sorry, Mr. Wallace, but this is little more than a Christian pep-talk or "preaching to the choir". Once again, as usual, you offer nothing that disturbs atheist bible critics in the least...except for the dumb ones.