Answering The Atheist has been created to provide explanations to supposed contradictions put forth by opponents of the Bible. Readers are welcome and invited to submit alleged discrepancies in Scripture, whether you intend to illustrate the futility in believing the Bible (perhaps our atheist or agnostic friends), or you sincerely desire to have an apparent contradiction explained (Perhaps our Bible-believing friends).
Some of the material which will appear in Answering The Atheist will be in response to a collection provided at a now-defunct web page: Atheism Explained: Why I Don’t Believe. Before introducing any “contradictions,” the author first comments on six explanations he has received in an attempt to deal with Bible “inconsistencies.” Thus, it seems fitting to first address these comments.
Atheism Explained, Complaint #1
“That is to be taken metaphorically.” In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN’T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD – which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want.
Answering the Atheist, Response #1
It’s nice that the writer finds this explanation to be so entertaining. Does the writer infer that everything which is written, biblical or not, ought to be taken literally? It is a fact that some language used in writings, both biblical and otherwise, is metaphoric. If the writer disputes that, he has merely shown his ignorance.
Metaphors are a part of our everyday language. Consider the person who exclaims, “My knee is killing me.” Is his knee really killing him? Is that not just a simple metaphoric statement indicating severe pain in the individual’s knee? When God’s word says, “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood…” (Acts 2:20), it ought to be evident that it is metaphoric language. In the book of Revelation, John declared, “…he sent and SIGNIFIED it by his angel unto his servant John…” (Revelation 1:1). John stated that the things which he writes are not literal, but signified. It is metaphoric language by its very nature. To deny that some items in Scripture are to be taken metaphorically only serves to prove one’s ignorance.
Atheism Explained, Complaint #2
“There was more there than…” This is used when one verse says “there was A” and another says “there was B”, so they decide there was “A” AND “B” – which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn’t say there wasn’t “A + B”. But it doesn’t say there was “A + B + little green martians.” This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only “A”) and the only way. I find it entertaining they don’t mind adding to verses.
Answering the Atheist, Response #2
Let us begin with an illustration. I have hosted a party, and speaking of the party to a co-worker, I mention, “Tom and Betty were there.” My wife, speaking to her friends at the grocery store says, “Julie and Fred were at the party.” Who was at the party? Well, we know that at least four people were there: Tom, Betty, Julie and Fred. Does the fact that I didn’t mention Julie and Fred mean they were not there? No, I simply did not mention that they were. Because my wife and I only mentioned four people who were at the party, does that mean no one else was there? No, simply that we didn’t mention who else may have been there. If one gospel writer mentions a certain person or persons who were at a specific event, and another writer mentions other persons who were at that event, not mentioned by the first writer, it is the very same situation as illustrated above. Is there a contradiction? No, just different information provided by different writers.
Atheism Explained, Complaint #3
“It has to be understood in context.” I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes “out of context.” How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of context) thrown up at you?
Answering the Atheist, Response #3
Again, consider an illustration. You’re at the doctor’s office. Your spouse is seeing the doctor about some pains which she has been experiencing. You are in the waiting room, but need to go to the washroom. On your way to the washroom, you notice the door to the examination room where the doctor and your wife are is ajar. On the way back to the waiting room, as you walk by the door, you overhear the doctor say, “…going to die. Here’s a prescription to relieve the pain…” You rush back to your seat, shocked at what you just heard — your wife is going to die! Unfortunately, you didn’t hear the whole statement: “No, you’re not GOING TO DIE. HERE’S A PRESCRIPTION TO RELIEVE THE PAIN. You should be feeling better in a few days.” Now tell me, is context important?
It has been said that one can prove anything from the Scriptures, and it is so if the context is ignored. I heard the story of an older preacher who in a Bible class stated that one could prove anything by the Bible. He explained, “If one misuses verses, by pulling them out of context, by twisting what they are saying, and so forth, he can teach anything he desires.” One of the students stated that he didn’t believe that one could prove anything by the Bible. The preacher affirmed that it could be done. The student then said, “OK, prove to me that it is wrong to split wood.” The preacher, with no more than a moment’s hesitation, replied, “Whatsoever God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” The context of a statement is vital!
Atheism Explained, Complaint #4
“There was just a copying/writing error.” This is sometimes called a “transcription error”, as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was “quoted” wasn’t really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that’s right — I’m not disagreeing with events, I’m disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.
Answering the Atheist, Response #4
It is acknowledged that our English translations may contain a minute number of errors, whether they be translation errors, copying errors, or subtle changes to aid support to a false doctrine. However, if one considers the Greek manuscripts which have been found, there is amazing consistency in them. It is eye opening to see the consistency of the Scriptures and supporting documentation for them as compared with the highly esteemed ancient writings of men.
Atheism Explained, Complaint #5
“That is a miracle.” Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.
Answering the Atheist, Response #5
I am unsure exactly what the writer’s point is. I have never heard anyone attempt to explain an apparent contradiction in Scripture away by simply saying, “That is a miracle.” An example of what the writer is speaking of might be to clarify his point. Perhaps the writer denies the possibility of miracles and thus decides that all miracles recorded in Scripture are somehow contradictions to something. They are not contradictions to the Bible, but they seem to be evidence of the writer’s faithlessness.
Atheism Explained, Complaint #6
“God works in mysterious ways.” A useful dodge when the speaker doesn’t understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.
Answering the Atheist, Response #6
Again, I have never heard this used to explain a supposed inconsistency in Scripture. An example would be in order.
Links: YouVersion | GROW magazine
Return to the article archive
