SCRAP THE SCRIPTURES

Fundamentalism holds that every word of the Bible is infallible truth. If reality doesn't back it up reality is lying. Of course then they have to choose which verses to focus on and how to interpret them and which of the 100+ versions of the Bible to read. The ESV released in 2001 with certain verses changed to make women even more submissive? The New King James Version (NKJV) that changed literally thousands of words that alter the original meaning? Just pick a version and interpret it however you please?

Many evangelical churches classify themselves as "independent" giving pastors supreme power of speaking for God. Pastor Bob will tell you what version to read and how to interpret it.

But regardless of who you are, pastor or parishioner, when you dig deep enough into the Bible, the narratives just fall apart.

Apologists will deny any inconsistencies or attempt to explain them away. But in the academic world, these errors are examined, and the Bible is considered far from inerrant and rife with trending myths of its times instead.

Biblical Inconsistencies

The first two chapters of Genesis present conflicting narratives of creation. Read them again if you didn't already notice! You've got God depicted as changing in Jonah 3:10 and then written as unchanging in Malachi 3:6. Ezekiel 18:20 says that children don't get punished for the sins of their parents but Exodus 20:5 says God dishes it out as far as great-great-grandkids.

Exodus 20:8 says to keep the Sabbath day holy but Romans 14:5 says all days should be regarded the same. Ecclesiastes 1:4 says the Earth will exist forever but 2Peter 3:10 says it's going to melt. In Genesis 32:30 Moses sees the face of God but John 1:18 insists that no one ever has. Matthew 19:26 says that all things are possible with God but in Judges 1:19 iron chariots were undefeatable for him.

Exodus 21:23-25 is "an eye for an eye" and Matthew 5:39 is "turn the other cheek". Genesis 17:10 commands circumcision but in Galatians 5:2 it doesn't matter. James 1:13 says that God won't tempt you but in Genesis 22:1 he tempted Abraham. Job 7:9 says that death is the end but John 5:28-29 has the righteous busting out of graves.

God's anger lasts forever (Jeremiah 17:4) and also doesn't last forever (Micah 7:18). Man is justified through works and not faith alone (James 2:24) and also through faith alone (Galatians 2:16). On the road to Damascus, Paul's traveling companions heard the voice of God but didn't see him (Acts 9:7) and also they didn't hear the voice of God but did see him. (Acts 22:9) Jesus is the only human to have ascended into Heaven (John 3:13) and also isn't the only human to have ascended into Heaven (2 Kings 2:11).

And don't forget all of Jesus's predictions for his return. Matthew 16:28 said it would happen within the lifetime of people Jesus was standing there with. Luke 21:32-33 said it would be within the generation. Paul was at it too: Romans 13:11-12: "The hour is at hand!" "The coming of the Lord draweth nigh!" — James 5:8

The Scripture's attempts at writing history don't get it right either. Samuel and Chronicles cover much of the same history but provide conflicting details.

Then the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John present different and conflicting portraits of Jesus's birth, life and ministry. Am I wrong? Matthew portrays Jesus as the miracle-working messiah who fulfilled the predictions of Scripture and taught the correct understanding of the Law of Moses. But in Mark he tries to keep his identity secret and is widely misunderstood.

Luke flips the script with portrayal of Christ instead as both as a Greco-Roman "divine man" and as the final prophet sent by God to the Jewish people, and John takes it further with portrayal of Jesus as a pre-existent divine being who was with God in the beginning, created the world, and then became a human. Those are some pretty big differences and they are just to name a few.

Historical inaccuracies

Then there's historical impossibilities: There is no evidence of the flood; a literal interpretation is inconsistent with the findings of geology, archaeology, paleontology, and zoology. There's no evidence of the Exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, or the vast and powerful United Monarchy under David and Solomon.

Embarrassing anachronisms like the presence of domesticated camels prancing on the scene about 1,000 years early, and mention of cities existing long before or after archaeological evidence also compromise the Scriptures as the infallible text.

The early history of Israel described from Genesis to Deuteronomy reflects the geography and culture of a much later time, and was constructed to provide a founding myth for Israel. Every culture needs a "this is how it all started" story that makes them the main character after all.

Moving on to the New Testament, biblical scholars note that in order for Jesus to be respected as the savior prophesied about in the Old Testament, Gospel authors had to fabricate some narratives. Prophecy held Christ would be born in Judea but Jesus lived in Nazareth. Matthew says Mary and Joseph already lived in Bethlehem and moved to Nazareth later. Luke's author tries to clear it up by alleging they had to travel to Bethlehem for a census under King Herod, which historically didn't happen. Herod died in 4 BCE and there wasn't a census recorded until Quirinius, who governed in 6 CE.

If Jesus's birth story was fabricated, can we assume his life story was fabricated too?

Unlike many other historical figures of the period, there is no contemporary Roman, Jewish, or archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus. Multiple academic theories provide informed and insightful speculation on how the Christ narrative evolved. Explore them here.

"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them."
GALILEO GALILEI

We shouldn't be growing up with the belief system of a more ignorant time. We should be afforded the opportunity to examine the Bible within the context of that ignorant time. Some progressive churches do so. But not the "infallible" fundies.