My Analysis of the Bible Part 4D: My View of Mormonism

How do you view the LDS Church? 

I use Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (also known as Mormonism) references often in discussions. This is because I have spent a lot of time debating with Elders who walk around my campus. I think their church has its pros and cons. I don’t like the scripture its preserves, as I have found it to have no historical backing. While I find its origins less than genuine, I am encouraged by their organization and commitment to reaching out to others. Of the multiple Elders I have spoken with, I have not met one who was overly pushy or judgmental. They can be perceived that way due to their constant presence in public, as they are eager to share their faith. And while I am not a fan of the Book of Mormon, they also use the King James Bible, and share a lot in common with typical evangelical churches today. Of course there are some drastic differences too. So in short, I see them as confused brothers and sisters in Christ, putting too much emphasis on "knowing" their faith is all true (much how I see Evangelicals). They can produce a wonderful “fruit” with their actions, but not the soundest of doctrine. But as a shameless plug, I will say that I would encourage anyone who is even remotely interested to talk to Mormon elders and sisters. All the ones I have met have been awesome, and they have all been very kind and slow to judge in discussion of differing faiths.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 4C: My Selection of Scripture

How can you believe in some parts of the Bible and not others? 

This is actually a rather silly question. Do you believe Abraham was a righteous man and father of the Hebrews? The typical answer is yes. Do you believe that Muhammad is the last prophet of God? The typical answer is no. Right there the typical Christian just believed certain parts of the Qur’an and not others. The only difference is that they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. If I do not believe this, then this question is meaningless. This would be a good question for those who believe the Bible is the inspired literal Word of God, but who choose to believe parts in it are wrong.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 4B: My Skepticism

How do you know when to draw the line with your skepticism? 

This is a popular response. Most wonder how I differentiate what is important belief and what is not. According to scripture, faith in Jesus is essential to salvation. So how do I make sure I don’t start doubting any of the required beliefs to get into heaven? This is a line I am uncomfortable drawing for anyone else but myself. How can I tell you your convictions? I can tell you my own heart draws the line for me, and I will admit I have crossed my own lines in my life and have admitted error, it is easy to use skepticism to bend the Bible into any form you want. But I can tell you that my own conviction is to pursue religious truths, because that is how I feel close to God. If you feel like you are betraying God by questioning too much, then don’t. While I would highly encourage you to reflect what exactly God means to you, the last thing I am trying to inspire is people to abandon their convictions. And it should be stated that skepticism should never be used as a simple justification to do what you want to do. If one is going to be critical of scripture, one must study both the content and context of the Bible, and attempt to view them objectively to see what the authors are really trying to say instead of what one wants them to say. And of course, it is always possible to disagree with what scripture says, too. But then we must ask ourselves "why?" Why do you disagree? Is it because science or scholarly work points to something different? Or is it because the rule in question in a modern context doesn't quite fit Jesus' message of love? I find either of these two reasons to be generally valid, but that is in accordance to my own convictions.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 4A: My Knowledge

Part 4 is a few questions asked frequently in response to my beliefs about the Bible.

What makes you think you are smarter than the men who wrote the Bible?
Define “smart.” Do I think I am more intellectual than these men? I have no idea, I have not met them. I can say through my reading I highly doubt I was as intelligent as Paul. While I do not share all of his beliefs, he is someone I admire. But that does not make his writings divinely inspired. I think I have more knowledge than these men. Do you think the author of Genesis comprehended the earth being spherical? Do you think he understood that the sun and moon do not govern the day and night, but rather the earth's rotation around the sun determines such things?¹⁷ I think that’s highly unlikely. And yet there are those who are determined to believe that the author of Genesis must have had a better understanding of the earth’s mechanics than modern scientists (or at least were inspired to write down things regarding advanced knowledge that they themselves didn't understand). Just because I challenge what those men wrote, does not mean I’m smarter than them. Jesus challenged the scriptures as well, including the Torah itself.¹⁸ While I certainly believe Jesus was smarter than me, I take it as my responsibility to learn from his methods and value what he valued. As long as one strives to keep an open mind and an eagerness to embrace correction, I don’t think interpreting scripture for oneself is corrupting if you take the scriptures seriously. You do not need to be smarter than the person you are questioning. It’s actually better to not be, that way you will learn. Even the wisest of human minds are not complete with knowledge, it’s an ongoing experience.

17. The sun, moon, and earth according to Genesis
If we look at the first creation account in Genesis 1, we see the level of knowledge available to the author(s). Genesis 1.14-20:

“And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.”

What should be noted immediately is the logical inconsistency of the creation. As is commonly known, the first words spoken by God in the Bible are “Let there be light,” in Genesis 1.3. This takes place on the first day. Yet in the above passage, the fourth day, God creates the sun. While it is generally assumed that God can do all things, it seems more likely that the author(s) of this passage simply did not understand that we get our light from the sun. Also the “great lights,” i.e. the sun (the greater light) and the moon (the lesser light), are described as “ruling” the day and night in the sky dome. This description depicts an apparent functional view of the sun, moon, and earth, but it has little scientific substance. We know the sun and the earth’s orbit around it are what determine day and night. We know that the “lesser light” (or moon) is really not a light, but a reflector of the light produced by the sun. We know that there is no sky dome above us to place either of these two things in.

Another thing to note is that while this may be scientific nonsense, it has theological value. Ancient religions generally worshipped the sun, moon, and stars, and here they are not even named. Their function is explicitly given as time keepers, nothing more, reflecting the theological idea that God is more than a physical object, even one as great and mysterious as the sun. Instead, he is the creator of all physical objects. 

18. The scriptures challenged by Jesus
While Jesus certainly knew his scriptures, he challenged them, too. In Mark, Jesus is asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Mark 10.2-9:

Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

This is a response to Deuteronomy 24.1-4:

Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife. Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the LORD, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a possession.

While there is no indication that Moses (or Yahweh depending on how you choose to look at it) promoted the practice of divorce, clearly it was not seen as unacceptable. There is no law prohibiting divorce or even looking down upon the practice. However, Jesus amends this to indicate that not only is a man not to remarry his ex-wife after she has been with another man, but no one is to get a divorce (with perhaps an exception to infidelity). Thus Jesus did not see scripture as pure. If it were indeed the perfect Word of God, how could Jesus correct it, or at least show it to be lacking? While it can be argued that it was what God needed to tell the Israelites at that specific time, that train of thought raises this question: how can we know that the content of the Bible is relevant today? 

My Analysis of the Bible Part 3: My Role in the Church

While it would admittedly be difficult to get a pastoral job, I have nothing against the church. In fact, I often enjoy church services and other activities with fellow Christians. While I believe that the church can perpetuate unrealistic beliefs, this is generally not its primary function. And I don’t have all the answers, so I am not going to jump on the bandwagon of some of those vocal atheists that are anti-religion and claim that the church is spreading lies. They are spreading unreasonable methods of discovering truth, perhaps, but not necessarily lies. I am also, therefore, not one to be immediately jumping to attack others’ religions. This does not make me a Universalist, because I do believe in a God whose nature I have understood through Christian texts and the Hebrew Bible. It is not the Buddha, Confucius, or Muhammad that I am placing as “Lord” over my lifestyle, but Jesus. I believe in truth, but some truths are more important than other truths. For example, is it true that Christ was born of a virgin? This is not an opinion, it either happened or it didn't. But does it really matter? Does believing or doubting this impact my life? No. Do I have a belief about Jesus’ conception? Absolutely, but why does that matter? Now let me ask this: is it true that God wishes for us to help those in need? This is absolutely important for those who believe in a God and want to serve him, or even merely want to live as they were designed to. For if this indeed is God’s will, we are to follow it. This directly impacts our lives, and therefore this is a more important truth, even if we cannot find solid facts to prove it.

It is for this reason that doctrine does not concern me too much. It is through religious doctrine that the world sees ultimate truths, important truths. Are some spreading lies? Yes, if one is to believe in an idea like truth actually existing some religions have to be perpetuating lies. But this is only occuring if we place emphasis that our understanding of our faith is inerrant. And who has the authority to put their foot down and explain who is right? That’s the real problem. While if you are a Christian, you will undoubtedly answer “Jesus,” but then you need to inspect your sources, as Jesus isn't currently walking the earth. So then you can put faith in those Jesus is said to have trusted, his disciples and apostles, ignoring Judas Iscariot, perhaps. But of course, they aren't walking around either. So the records attributed to these men must be authoritative, and thus we get the “Word of God.” While a man cannot walk the earth forever, a text can be preserved. While this is a convenient authority, it comes from a place far beyond faith in Jesus alone or following in his footsteps. This attitude has also preserved ancient tradition and texts, which is certainly positive, although I find it a bit naïve to seriously think it preserves everything perfectly.

This is part of the function of the church, to preserve tradition and doctrine. It is through the passed down teachings and writings of men that we hold records of the leading figure of our religion, and therefore preserving these must be important. However, that is only one function of the church. Another is in the business of helping others and changing lives. This is, in my opinion, the most important aspect of the church. This is why I join in church activities. It’s not to worship God with others, I do that in my everyday life through my actions (or at least I do my best to). It’s to help create a community that values helping those in need, and an environment that encourages people to seek help in attempting to follow Jesus and live righteously. Songs and communion are fine, but not nearly as important to me as the face time your make with others, or the opportunity to be there if someone wants to open up or is looking for help or guidance. I actually consider social events more important than church services, as there is generally more conversation and face time with others. That’s where I think the biggest impacts can be made by the church (i.e. Christians). And of course, let us not forget another aspect that some churches forget: the church should also be willing to help those in physical need as well as emotional (or what some might call “spiritual”) need.

This might leave you curious as to why I would bother writing all this out, or having these discussions with others. Is my search for truth getting in the way of others coming to Christ? I don’t think so, because I am not alone. People like me are generally repelled from church groups because they feel they cannot ask questions and seek for realistic answers AND be a Christian or part of a church. I have literally been criticized for supposing the earth was not created in a literal 7 days as being a burden to those with questions seeking distinct answers. I think that it is just as important to incorporate modern knowledge into religion as it is to incorporate ancient wisdom. If we only rely on modern science and philosophy, we are missing the very roots of our religion, and if we only rely on traditional thought, how are we going to find a place in a modern world? Seeking truth is productive just like preserving tradition. While both camps bump heads fairly often, it’s important to step back and remember that we, as Christians, share a primary purpose: to be a saving force to mankind. Ultimately, that is why a progressive like me supports churches as well as traditional Christians. We are on the same side. While the conservative and liberal Christians have different roles, we are working towards the same goal, and ultimately we need each other if we are to accurately represent Christ as well as enable the modern world to accept him.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2G: Other

You have some other reason of which I am not aware

Possibly you have some other reasoning that I did not think to mention here. While these responses have been inspired by real conversations, it would be arrogant to think that there is no other possible reason to believe the Bible to be God’s Word.

Many people use a combination of these reasons as justification for their belief. Religious issues are generally complex in nature, and they are personally connected to how we view our purpose in the world so it's no wonder we use subjective reasoning to defend our beliefs. However, if we are to look to pursue truth, we must be able to perceive views that are not our own and acknowledge and/or limit our subjective reasons. We must not be egocentric in our discourse with others if we want that discourse to mean anything to them.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2F: The Holy Spirit

You feel the Holy Spirit is telling you the Bible is God’s Word 

You feel in your heart that the Holy Spirit is confirming that the Bible is God’s Word and it can be trusted despite reasons for thinking differently. It just feels right.

That’s nice. I feel like my heart is telling me to seek truth within the Bible and to question it and put it to the test, which resulted in this essay. Where does that leave us? To quote Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5.19-22: "Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But exam everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." So, according to the "Word of God," if we are to test the Spirit, and we use the Spirit as a reason to give the Bible authority, then we must test the Bible's authority. This is what I am doing... and I think it falls short of the title "Word of God" for reasons stated in Part 1. At any rate, if one is to take this verse seriously, simply saying one believes the Bible to be the Word of God because one feels the Spirit giving it credit is inappropriate to the very nature of the supposed "Word of God," unless there is some testing to back it up.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2E: Prophecy

You believe the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible testify to its authority as a whole

The Bible has many prophetic books, and many of the prophecies have occurred. This speaks to the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Bible as a whole.

There are many prophecies in the Bible, some of which have come true. For instance, in Mark (believed to be written prior to 70 CE) Jesus mentions the Temple being destroyed, and it is a historical fact that the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.¹² That is pretty cool! However, if you look at other prophecies with the openness that the Bible may not have been written when it was thought to have been traditionally, some are questionably genuine. Also, you are missing a step of rationale: if the prophecies are true, how does that justify an entire collection of writings as being the “Word of God?” The prophets do not mention which books ought to be included, and given Matthew’s reference to a prophetic work that is not mentioned in the Old Testament it seems by that logic there is some divine inspiration outside the Bible.¹³ While this is certainly a fun topic to look into, it does little for an argument that the Bible is 100% God’s Word, although it could perhaps imply that God’s Word can come in written form.

To be fair, this is not something I have studied extensively, although I hear plenty about the biblical prophecies every family get-together since interpreting the Bible’s coded prophecies has become a fascinating hobby for my aunt and grandpa. But prophecy is a difficult thing to test. For instance, we see a prophetic messianic poem in Micah 5 describing the emergence of one coming out of Bethlehem to rule Israel.¹⁴ This is popularly interpreted by Christians as a reference to Jesus, who was reported to be born in Bethlehem in both Matthew and Luke. This prophecy seems straightforward: it predicted a ruler of ancient origins coming out of Bethlehem; Jesus of Nazareth seems to fit this in a spiritual sense. However, a Jew will likely not interpret it as such. Jews were expecting a messiah of a different nature, one that would restore the nation of Israel and liberate its people. We read other “prophecies” such as Psalm 2 where the begotten son of God is predicted to rule the other nations with force.¹⁵ Jesus did no such thing, but was actually of a peaceful nature. He did not liberate the Jews in a political sense. He physically destroyed no nations. Does this mean the prophecy was wrong? The typical Christian response is “no, this just has not happened yet,” referring to Jesus’ Second Coming. It has been about 2000 years after Jesus’ time, and he has still not returned. I am not suggesting Jesus will not return, but am demonstrating how unfalsifiable prophecies are. In other words, it cannot be proven wrong. If an event is prophesied to occur, it will either occur or not occur. To people believing in a prophecy, it literally cannot be wrong. Because if it does occur, it must be right; but if it does not occur that means it will happen later. There is absolutely no way to test accuracy without a distinct time frame, which, to go back to our biblical example, even Jesus did not know when the Second Coming will be.¹⁶ Therefore while there are some seemingly fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, very few of them could have been shown to be false, and therefore cannot be taken as objective evidence to support accuracy of the Bible.

12. The destroyed Temple prophesy
Many scholars agree that Mark was written prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE (although it also important to note that many do not). The rationale behind this hypothesis is the description of the temple’s destruction in Mark is vague compared with Matthew and Luke. In Mark 13, Jesus is describing the future for his followers. In it he describes how they will be beaten in synagogues and be tried by kings and a chaotic state where families will be in conflict with one another and how the inhabitants of Judah will flee to the mountains. Surely there is implied conflict upon the region, but nothing hinting at Jerusalem being sacked or the Temple’s destruction. Jesus, however, does make a claim about the temple before he describes the coming times of distress. Mark 13.1-2:

“As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!’ Then Jesus asked him, ‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’”

This is the only specific reference to the destruction of the Temple. This would very likely be referenced more specifically given its importance to the Jewish people. In Matthew, we see Jesus giving a parable about a king whose son is to be married. The king sends slaves out to seek out the invited guests. The guests, however, have different ideas and did not take the invitation seriously, some even angry and killing the slaves. The king is therefore full of wrath, described by Matthew 22.7:

“The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.”

The king then sends his slaves out to anyone they can find to come to the banquet. This parable is a clear allusion to Christ’s movement within Judaism. The Jews, or the originally invited guests, refuse to accept God’s son, symbolized by the king’s son’s wedding. Therefore, in the parable, their city was destroyed. This seems to be a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, interpreted in this parable as God’s wrath for rejecting his son, Jesus. In Luke there is another specific reference to Jerusalem’s destruction. When Jesus approaches Jerusalem, he weeps for its fate in Luke 19.41-44:

“As he came near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, ‘If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Indeed, the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you, and hem you in on every side. They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another; because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.’”

While the detailed accounts of Matthew and Luke are suspected to be due to the authors’ knowledge of Jerusalem’s destruction (in other words, since they were both written after 70 CE), Mark’s account of Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction probably occurred before the historical events. While this does not prove that this is divinely inspired prophecy, it is possible.

13. The prophet outside the Bible
In Matthew the author uses quotations from the Hebrew Bible to demonstrate Jesus is the messiah which the Jews had been waiting on. There is one such quotation that is accredited to the prophets that is not found in the Hebrew Bible. Matthew 2.23:

“There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’”

This could mean that there was an oral tradition or an unknown text to which this is referring to. Since the other quotations in Matthew are from the prophetic texts of the Jewish Bible, an oral tradition seems unlikely. This calls into question Matthew sources, possibly implying an unknown divinely inspired text. Other scholars have searched for context, believing that Matthew is paraphrasing a prophetic work that the modern reader would not understand.

14. The messianic prophecy of Micah
Micah, a younger contemporary of Isaiah, was supposed to have lived in “the days of Kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah” (an excerpt from Micah 1.1). These kings ruled Judah from 759-687 BCE. This is critical in understanding the context of Micah, since in 722 BCE the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) was conquered by the Assyrians. This emphasizes the need for a king of Israel to rise against its surround enemies. Micah 5.2-5 is a short poem alluding to such a king:

“But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth from me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall live secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth; and he shall be the one of peace.”

Ephrathah is the name of a Judahite region, emphasizing it is the Judean Bethlehem that will produce the future king (as opposed to the Bethlehem in the north, which is located in the future region of Galilee). This is important, as it symbolizes a connection to King David, whose birthplace was also the Bethlehem of Judah. David being long dead, “origin of old” is believed to be placing this coming king in the line of David. This is why in the Gospels Jesus is referred to as the “Son of David” at times (I will also note that while this flows with Christian interpretation of the prophetic works, some Christians have believed “origin of old” to refer to Jesus being the literal Son of God). It is this reason that Matthew and Luke mention Jesus’ Bethlehem birth; it is not a mere trivial detail.

15. The messianic “prophecy” of Psalms 2
I suppose I should first explain my skeptical quotation marks. While there are many works that claim to be prophetic in the Bible, this is not one of them. Psalms 2 is about the relation of God to his king of Israel. It seems almost certain that this is about Israel’s king’s rule in the context with his close relationship with God. The problem lies in Psalm 2.7-9:

“I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Here the Psalmist is writing about an earthly king. Surely this is not about Jesus, as the Psalmist reports being named the son himself. In fact, the title “son of God” was an old title for a Jewish king. However, this came to be associated with the coming messiah, and therefore with Jesus by Christians. Jesus never broke the nations with a rod of iron, or used any means of violence. His messianic identity proved to be of a spiritual rather than physical sense. This is why so many Jews rejected Jesus: he does not fit the bill as one who restored Israel to its former Davidic glory. The idea of a Second Coming explains this seemingly prophetic error. In other words, it is believed Jesus will return as a militant king in the end of days. While this very well may be true, it cannot be tested nor shown false, since any absence of such events in history merely suggests to the believer that it has not occurred yet. Prophetic interpretation is an entertaining and often inspirational hobby for Christians, but it does little to show evidence when the authenticity of “God’s Word” as a whole is being questioned.

16. The timing of the Second Coming
In Mark 13 Jesus is describing his Second Coming and the end of days. In regards to a timeframe, Jesus says in Mark 13.32-33:

“’But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come.’”

The Matthew counterpart is in chapter 24 verse 32 (for Mark’s influence on Matthew, see note 1):

“But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Since no one knows when Jesus will return, it is impossible to prove this prophetic claim false. That does not mean it is false, but it does mean there is no way to know if it is or is not a genuine prophecy; it is a matter of faith rather than reason.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2D: Apologetics

You have found through apologetic sources that the Bible is 100% accurate 

There are many apologetic works out there that offer a defense for the Christian faith, explaining all the seemingly inconsistent areas. The Bible is 100% correct, we just need to understand context and have an open mind to see the truth.

This is a popular option among rational Christians. There is a ton of apologetic work out there to counter every single doubt about the Bible. Some of it is plausible, perhaps even arguably likely, but much of it is solely based on making the Bible one coherent text. For instance, there are two Goliath killings in the Bible.¹¹ I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for that one. Someone who holds this view could probably argue with me until the end of time, but little convincing will ensue. You will likely see me as not wanting to see the truth when you have “explained” all of my questions, and I will see you as fighting to argue your belief is possible as opposed to it being likely. There is really not much I can say on this, other than with that kind of work most religions can be defended, including the LDS Church and Islam. While I tend to get along with people in this group as we both generally do not seem to mind debating for hours on end, I admit it is not as much as a debate as a “sharpening of swords.” You will learn new theories and explanations to refute the points and counterarguments I raise, and I will learn new understanding of the scholarly studies of the Bible to counter your points and counterarguments. It’s all good fun, but it isn’t always productive, as at times we will end up “beating a dead horse.”

11. The two Goliath killings
Everybody knows the traditional story of how David killed Goliath with his sling. What is interesting is that the Philistine champion is only called Goliath twice in the chapter; the rest of his references he is merely titled “Philistine.” These references are clearly referring to the Goliath mentioned in 1 Samuel 17.4 and 17.23. 1 Samuel 17:4-7:

“And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. He had a helmet of bronze on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. He had greaves of bronze on his legs and a javelin of bronze slung between his shoulders. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and his shield-bearer went before him.”

Goliath taunts and challenges an Israelite to battle him alone, as we all know. David, against overwhelming odds, confronts Goliath and kills him. This is possibly the most well known Old Testament story. Later in Samuel (originally 1 and 2 Samuel was one book, but was eventually split up for practicality sake as it made for one large scroll), another is given credit for killing Goliath, after David is king and is at war with the Philistines. 2 Samuel 21.19:

“Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

The first thing that should be noted is that a “Gittite” is a term for someone from Gath. Given his title and the following description of the shaft of his spear, this can be safely assumed to be the same man. But could Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim be an alternative name for David, after all he was a Bethlehemite? No, if there is a nickname for David which has been conveniently lost by the Jewish people who consider King David an iconic legend, it would unlikely be paired with a nickname for David’s father, which is Jesse in earlier chapters. And if by some very unlikely chance Elhanan is David, this would still not make sense since it occurs after David is king. Either way this is a significant discrepancy. It is also worth noting is that early authors of later books noticed this. If you read 1 Chronicles 20.5, you see an alternative account of Elhanan’s victory:

“Again there was war with the Philistines; and Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

This recollection says that it was Goliath’s brother who Elhanan killed, not Goliath himself. Now this should be enough for any Biblical literalist to at least start asking questions. While this could, perhaps, explain the discrepancy, it still shows a historical error within the biblical texts. What is more likely is that multiple sources were compiled to create the book of Samuel, and two accounts had differing records. The author(s) of Chronicles summarized the events in Samuel while honoring both accounts to make one coherent account. If you have a King James Bible, things will be told differently. While with any other translation you find you will see similar variations to 2 Samuel 21.19, the King James Version reads:

“And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.” 

While the King James Bible does not mention Goliath’s brother by name like the Chronicler’s account, it certainly changed the passage’s meaning. Why is it that only the King James Version of 2 Samuel 21.19 has Elhanan killing Goliath’s brother as opposed to Goliath himself? Part of the appeal of the King James translation is its poetic writing style and presentation. Staying accurate to the text was not as important as making it easy to read, and if the general assumption was that Elhanan did kill Goliath’s brother despite what is written on the early manuscripts, it would be helpful for the translators to make the change for the readers. I will point out that all Bible translations include some interpretive editing of this nature. For instance, some translation read “brothers and sisters” in some of Paul’s epistles rather than reading the literal “brothers.” It is assumed that Paul was talking to both men and women. Most translations, however, do not take their editing this far, as it would be criticized by the modern world. The King James Bible was published in 1611 CE. The older texts on which the translations are based do not include “the brother of” in 2 Samuel 21.19. This is distinctly of the King James Version, so unless one has the belief that the King James Bible is the only inspired Word of God, this means very little against this biblical inconsistency.

My Analysis of the Bible part 2C: Unity

You think it is a good way to keep Christians united and/or in check 

While relatively unconcerned with historical accuracy, you may think that it is necessary to keep this traditional view in order to protect the central doctrines of the Christian religion. Christians will be more productive if they are united, and without a central source this unification cannot happen. It will also keep individuals from manipulating doctrine for their own agendas, which will quickly corrupt the church.

This is a typical concern, and possibly a valid one. However, it has no substance for those seeking truth. A lie producing peace may be an ethical justification, but that’s not what I am interested in with regards to refining my beliefs. I am looking for truth, and therefore must go where the truth takes me, regardless of consequences. I am not the type to preach my views in order to change the world, but I have found my combination of faith and reasoning very fruitful to my life. But if this is your view, understand this: if you are more concerned about the consequences searching for truth might bring than finding truth itself, you have no place in reasonable debate. If anyone goes into a debate unwilling to learn, even if it is unlikely they will learn something, they are not debating, they are teaching. Your beliefs might put you in a pastoral position with an emphasis on leadership rather than one of truth seeking.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2B: Tradition

You believe that there is an authority in tradition of the church elders 

You may believe that the disciples and Paul have an authority on accurate church teachings since Jesus is said to have spoken plainly to them and they had direct contact with him. The early church elders who composed the Bible honored this code, therefore giving authority to the Bible itself.

This was the primary argument in the early church elders. Some even made it clear that Peter’s tradition of Rome was more authoritative than anything Paul wrote, as Peter had direct contact with Jesus while Paul merely had a vision (these people became known as Roman Catholics).⁸ This was a feature looked for in canonizing the Bible. But it should be understood that this is certainly not a black and white issue. For instance, you are putting a lot of faith that the disciples who barely comprehended what Christ said were competent enough to produce 100% sound teachings after merely 40 days of instruction.⁹ You are also putting faith in the church elders making correct decisions. For instance, it was not the disciples who chose the canonization of the Bible. While it is unlikely the books chosen were based from corruption, it is still putting faith in those who lived well after the disciples’ time to put together “God’s word.” Also, even if these elders are qualified to distinguish orthodox doctrine from unorthodox, what qualifications do they hold to proclaim any particular work as divinely inspired, let alone 100% accurate? Even in Paul’s letter to Timothy, it is stated “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (NASB, 2 Timothy 3:16).¹⁰ For Paul, “scripture” is certainly not referring to the whole modern Bible, but only Old Testament texts, and perhaps more or less, certainly not the New Testament which was written after Paul’s time (although it could be argued Paul was referring to his own letters as “scripture” as well). But following Paul’s idea of scripture, we must look at what he said scripture is used for: teaching, reproof, correction, and training IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. Not for science or historical accuracy. Modern Christians have turned a set of writings into more than what Paul claimed them to be.

8. The search for Christian authority
In the early centuries of the Common Era when Christians were struggling to define “Christianity,” a sect emerged called the “Gnostics.” Gnosticism is an older idea applied to Christian doctrine organized and made popular by a man named Valentinus, and his particular sect was called “Valentinianism.” While Valentinianism is certainly not orthodox by today’s standards, it is bases Paul’s letters as its authority. Much like how Mormons interpret the Bible, they used extra-biblical guides to “correctly” interpret them. This raised a concern about where Christians ought to put authority for their doctrine and rites. It was argued that the apostolic tradition headed by Peter, the rock on which Jesus was to build his church, was the highest authority. While Paul’s letters were generally seen as authoritative as well, the ultimate authority was given to Peter’s traditions passed down in the Church of Rome. Source: Chidester, D. (2000). Christianity: A global history. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

9. The forty days after the Resurrection
This one is pretty self-explanatory. Acts 1.3:

“After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.”

10. The use of scripture according to Paul
In 2 Timothy, Paul writes to encourage Timothy to hold fast to what he has come to believe. 2 Timothy 3.13-17:

“But wicked people and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” 

For Paul, the inspiration of the Hebrew scripture (the New Testament would not have been around for him to read as a child) is useful in pointing people to Jesus and his role (the spiritual Messiah) and guiding in righteous action. Nowhere does he write that it is useful for perfect historical accuracy or science. While it can be argued that these things are assumed, I would argue that if it was assumed, it was because this was the extent of the historical capabilities of the ancient world. Modern history stands to much higher scrutiny nowadays. While the nature of righteousness should not change in the modern world, our understanding of the world must.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 2A: Culture

Now that I have defended my own position, let’s investigate the common reasons I have been given to support the belief in the Holy Bible. It will be at least one of the following reasons, although likely a combination of a few.

You value the tradition of your beliefs

Some will always believe the Bible is the Word of God no matter what they may read or see, simply due to the fact that it is what they were taught growing up. They value their family and religious heritage and it is more important to them to keep carrying that line that investigating progressive thoughts and views towards religious ideas.

This is a belief I typically respect. Most of the people I have talked to who have felt this way are very tolerant of others’ beliefs and have a good practical sense of peacemaking about them, as they understand others' beliefs to be their own traditions. There are exceptions of course. While I can highly respect and even look up to some of the individuals who share this belief, it does little for my goal of pursuing truths. If these Christians grew up under an Islamic family, they would likely be Muslim. This is not necessarily true, as many people have complicated reasoning behind their beliefs, but since its primary concern is tradition as opposed to understanding it cannot be thought of as offering a realistic sense of divine inspiration of the Bible.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 1D: My Belief

My Belief 

So how do I view the Bible? I think the best place to start is investigating what God’s word is. If we are to align ourselves with the nature of a God, surely there must be some medium on earth in which God communicates with us. To get this answer, I turn to the Bible. Now this raises a question of why I would look in the Bible for an answer when I do not believe it is God’s word. While I doubt the inerrancy of the Bible, I do see it as a collection of ancient historical and theological accounts. And yes, I do view them as historical, but not to modern standards. For instance, Job is a poetic work, so why would I believe that it is attempting to accurately portray history?⁵ I would compare it Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. It certainly takes place in a real world setting, but for no reason should it be taken as an accurate historical event. The beginning of Genesis refers to God as separating the waters creating air. The ancient view of the world was a flat disc surrounded by water.⁶ While the author may have been trying to portray history, their limited knowledge made their description less than accurate. So why did the author of Genesis write the account? I would think to demonstrate God’s role in our life as a creator, as a force of good and justice and a love for his creation. I believe these things. So the Bible therefore must be studied to understand author intent as well as the resources they had and ancient understanding of the world. This also calls into question the integrity of the authors. If the author is not divinely inspired, then how can we trust him to give us sincere doctrine? That is a good question, and something one should study up on while reading the Bible.

To go back, what is God’s word then to me? John gives us a straight answer: Jesus. Jesus Christ, according to John, is the divine medium in which God acts and communicates to the world.⁷ This medium was put into human form through the man Jesus who walked the earth and taught, and was eventually crucified. I don’t believe any book can ever live up to this perfection. Now of course if a skeptic like me is reading this, you are probably asking why I would believe Jesus is the perfect word of God. I have personal, subjective reasons for believing this. In summary, I have lived "following Jesus", and I have lived not following Jesus and I have found meaning and joy in my life doing the former. Following Jesus of the gospel's teachings has created a framework of thought that I have found liberating. It has brought meaning to my life that I haven't found elsewhere. Are some details in my own faith wrong? Probably. But my faith rests upon the subjective truths I have found in the bible, not the historical truths. So for me, the word of God is Jesus, but not necessarily the literal man who walked the earth 2000 years ago. Instead, it is the truths that I have found to be transforming in my own life the have been associated with the Jesus of the bible and the teachings that are attributed to him.

5. The content of Job
Job is a work of poetry. In the Jewish tradition Job is counted among the poetic books in the sect of scripture known as Writings (or Ketubim). This section also includes Psalms and Proverbs. While this by definition does not mean it is inaccurate, it provides no reason to suspect its purpose is anything beyond inspiring faith and devotion to God, not historical accuracy.

6. The Sky dome of Genesis
In the first description of creation, we see that God separates waters in order to create space for his creation. Genesis 1.6-8:

“And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.”

We now know that our sky is not separated by waters, but rather our sphere is surrounded by vacuum. Now I have heard it argued that the water above the dome is water vapor, but there is no reason to think that the author(s) of Genesis had a concept of water vapor floating in the sky. If he did, he certainly made no attempt to describe it effectively.

7. The Word of God according to John
In the gospel of John, Jesus is named immediately as the Word of God. John 1.1-5:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”

And then John 1.14:

“And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.”

Jesus is described as the Word of God becoming flesh. Through this Word the world was created and the life that inhabits it. It is God’s medium of action. Jesus, being the Word on earth, was a light to bring life. This Word of God is what I have faith in.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 1C: The Biblical Essentialist

I am not a Biblical Essentialist 

A Biblical Essentialist is a term I use to represent those who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but in a way to inspire righteousness in man as opposed to record explicitly accurate history. These people generally reject that the earth was created in 7 literal days, or other seemingly exaggerated events such as Samson lifting city gates and carrying them for 35 miles.⁴ This leads to the serious questioning of what is literal and what is figurative. Catholic doctrine takes this kind of view, believing that context and author intent can make the Bible more figurative at times (although I think it is safe to say it is a very conservative Biblical Essentialism).

This is the best argument of the three. If Genesis is not supposed to be literal, how then can we say the Bible is wrong when science tells us that the earth is far older than a few thousand years? And it makes sense too. For instance, it is unlikely that whoever wrote Job actually believed the scene between God and Satan was a real event.⁵ How would he witness this? It is also very unlikely that whoever wrote the Genesis account was trying to write an exact historical account. The purpose is generally believed to be more theological, to demonstrate God’s place in human life. This idea can be scary to Christians because it leaves room for interpretation of a text that Christians use to base their faith. Issues like homosexuality now need to be reasoned with, as it being spoken against in “God’s Word” is not enough of an authority to many Christians today. It makes issues more complex, and can be inconvenient to those pursuing Christian unity. While I understand the problems that this raises, that is not a reason to reject this way of thinking. I believe God’s nature is of love and truth, and therefore I must base my understanding of texts about him in the same light. In other words, I must read them searching for truth, rather than being more focused on the fear of the truth’s consequences. Imagine if Jesus adopted an attitude of fear of consequences, where would we be? His speaking of truth caused many to die in his name, should he have went along with the misconceptions of others about religious life to keep things running smoothly? While I am certainly no Jesus Christ, I am doing my best to learn from him and follow in his footsteps. While faith is certainly an aspect of Christian life, a reverence for truth in its doctrines is equally important, in my opinion. While I do not call the Bible God’s Word, I am very open to this interpretation. However, I do have a problem with it. If we are to title the Bible as “God’s Word” in this light, what stops other wisdom texts from being God’s Word as well? Does the title “God’s Word” simply imply a work which inspires good nature in mankind? Can other religions’ texts also be God’s Word? A simple answer to this is that the Bible is unique in that it revolves around the Church set up by Jesus the Christ; therefore its inspiration is different than other texts since it is meant to be a part of that system established by God. I find this to be a well thought argument. My only disagreement would be I have little faith in the organized church, and therefore do not recognize it as an authority to distinguish uniquely inspired scripture. I suppose the next big question would be why I reject the organized Church. In short, I have found it to be of destructive force in the past (especially when it gained political power) and therefore see no reason to think that it was established by God. I believe that when Jesus says “my kingdom is not of this earth” he means that no church organization or political power can truly contain the Church. This, however, is not the purpose of this essay. It is not to debate the authority of the church (although I suppose this is being challenged by the mere topic of this essay), but rather to investigate the Bible itself. However, if one does share my protestant view of the limits of church authority, one must ask oneself who does have the authority to call any man-made document “God’s Word.”

4. The Strength of Samson
In the book of Judges, Samson is depicted as a lone warrior who had divine strength. One of his feats is mentioned in Judges 16.1-3:

“Once Samson went to Gaza, where he saw a prostitute and went in to her. The Gazites were told, “Samson has come here.” So they circled around and lay in wait for him all night at the city gate. They kept quiet all night, thinking, “Let us wait until the light of the morning; then we will kill him.” But Samson lay only until midnight. Then at midnight he rose up, took hold of the doors of the city gate and the two posts, pulled them up, bar and all, put them on his shoulders, and carried them to the top of the hill that is in front of Hebron.”

Gaza being a Philistine city, this is just one of the miraculous events Samson does to embarrass the Philistines. The city gate would be a fortified structure. His total distance carrying the gates on his shoulders would be over 35 miles.

5. The content of Job
Job is a work of poetry. In the Jewish tradition Job is counted among the poetic books in the sect of scripture known as Writings (or Ketubim). This section also includes Psalms and Proverbs. While this by definition does not mean it is inaccurate, it provides no reason to suspect its purpose is anything beyond inspiring faith and devotion to God, not historical accuracy.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 1B: The Biblical Idealist

I am not a Biblical Idealist

A Biblical Idealist is a term I am using to represent those who believe the original biblical texts are all literally true. These people believe God inspired men to write everything exactly correct within the Bible, but through copying and translating some meaning and possibly numerical values have been lost. This opens up a significant hole in attempting to understand the Bible, as it is hard to know exactly what has been corrupted and what has not. But for the most part the Bible is generally taken literally as is.

I find this to be a weak attempt to explain that the Bible is the Word of God after viewing its discrepancies. This is really just a masked version of Biblical Essentialist (see Part 1C) attempting to keep the traditional view of the Biblical Literalist. Who is to say which parts are corrupted? You? Me? How about Mohammed? If you are a Muslim you may agree with this, but Evangelicals will not. It is the middle ground for the sake of middle ground, there is no good reason to believe this. Generally this view comes from people who were raised to be a Biblical Literalist, but soon realize there are likely errors in the Bible and need an explanation to justify their belief in the Bible being God’s literal word. It is convenient and practical, but it has little value for someone pursuing truth. With this kind of method of thinking, any religion can be defended. While generally it is used as a “peace maker” between the Biblical Literalists and the Biblical Essentialists, it stunts any valid means of seeking truth as a consequence. After all, how could you test this? What reason do you have for supposing this, other than to explain your belief? It is proposing a hypothesis in order to explain an older hypothesis, as opposed to the academic method of proposing a hypothesis in light of evidence or reason.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 1A: The Biblical Literalist

When describing one’s beliefs, it is of the upmost importance to define one’s terms. Therefore, the first objective must be to define what “God’s word” means. It means a variety of things to different people. There are typically three camps Christians fall into, which I have taken the liberty to label as Biblical Literalists, Biblical Idealists, and Biblical Essentialists. After briefly describing each of these groups, I will then demonstrate why I do not share the views of those who would fall into the group. After I have refuted all three, I will then explain my own belief about the Bible.

I am not a Biblical Literalist
Biblical Literalists believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. They believe the whole Bible is telling one story of the world’s salvation, beginning with the creation of the world and ending with the vision in Revelation of the end times. They believe the earth was literally created in 7 days, exactly as the Bible describes it. They also believe that the Bible has no contradictions. While this is commonly believed by Evangelical Protestants today, I find it unreasonable. Rather than basing my reasoning in science, I looked to the Bible itself to refute this. This theory can be checked by simply searching for inconsistencies in the “Good Word.” And they are there. Read Matthew, and then read Mark. There are discrepancies. There are stories told in both that have differing details. 

While it can be (weakly) argued that certain healings and occurrences are describing two different events, it seems like Matthew edited Mark’s gospel and added to it.¹ Now read John. They are completely different. In Mark Jesus is trying to conceal his identity, in John he’s telling everybody who he is bluntly.² It just does not make sense to think that both capture the real Jesus. Or, if we turn to the Old Testament, ask yourself when Jerusalem was captured. Read Joshua, and then read the beginning of Judges. According to Joshua, Jerusalem (or Jebus, as it was supposedly known then) was not able to be captured, despite Israelite success surrounding that area. In Judges, the tribe of Judah is said to have taken over Jerusalem. Then in Samuel it is said to be taken over by David.³ At least one is wrong. Assuming that everything is 100% correct in the Bible, one can argue that Israel lost control of Jerusalem after Judah took it but before David took it. This is possible in the sense that it could have happened, but unlikely that it would be unmentioned given the city’s importance. And if you believe that the Bible was given to us by God for history’s sake, why would he leave this detail out? I could go on in examples from the Bible like this, but there is little reason to do so. If I did list every inconsistency I found in the Bible, I do not doubt that an apologist could explain away all of them. But if this were to happen, seeing all the improbabilities and extra-biblical explanations to enable the Bible to be 100% literally correct would not work to prove anything. It soon becomes a game to show how this view of the Bible is technically possible, as opposed to my goal of finding what is realistic or likely. It is possible that Jesus was a white man who later flew to the Americas which were actually populated by descendants of Joseph son of Jacob’s line. To a non-Mormon this may seem silly, but look into their scholarship. They can play the game quite well too.

1. The origins of Matthew and Mark
Given that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all share some common stories using nearly identical words at times, scholars typically agree that Mark was written first, sometime before Matthew and Luke. While these stories are not always exact, it appears that in Matthew and Luke the stories are polished up, given Mark’s rushed style. An example of this would be the story of Matthew 8.28 and Mark 5.1. Both stories agree that Jesus crossed the sea, cast out demons, cast the demons into pigs which jump off the cliff side to their death, and is then asked to leave by the frightened townspeople, to which Jesus consents. These stories do have differences, however. In Mark, there is only one demon possessed man who contains a “Legion” of demons, while in Matthew there are two demon possessed men. What’s really interesting is location. In Mark, the city mentioned is Geresa, which is significantly far from the sea (the Sea of Galilee). In Matthew’s suspected revision, the city is Gadara, which is much closer to the sea, although still far enough away for the events described as is to be completely accurate as described.

2. The contrast between the synoptic Jesus and John’s Jesus
While in Mark, Jesus is depicted as the humble Messiah of God, in John he is depicted as God walking the earth. Jesus often tells others in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to keep his messianic identity hidden, while in John he is going into the temple and synagogues bluntly telling others exactly who he is. The two distinct characteristics of Jesus imply that these gospels were written for theological reasons as opposed to attempting to portray an exact historical account of Jesus’ life.

3. The capture of Jerusalem
In Joshua the Israelites begin their conquest of Canaan, the Promised Land. While they are ideally supposed to take all of the land, some cities remained in Canaanite control. One such city is Jerusalem, or Jebus (named after the Jebusite people). While some cities seemed to be conquered by the whole of Israel (read the conquest in Joshua), others were left to the specific tribe in which the city was allotted. Jerusalem was given to Judah. However, Judah was unable to drive out the Jebusites. Joshua 15.63 reads:

“But the people of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so the Jebusites live with the people of Judah in Jerusalem to this day.”

However, according to the Judges account of the conquest, Judah did take the city. After capturing King Adoni-bezek and cutting off his big toes and thumbs (as he had done to kings he had conquered), they brought him to Jerusalem to die, and then overtook Jerusalem. Judges 1.8:

“Then the people of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it. They put it to the sword and set the city on fire.”

Now in Judges 19.10-12 it seems clear that the Jebusites are still controlling Jerusalem, and in 2 Samuel 5.6-9 it is taken from their control by David. What is also noteworthy is later in the same chapter of Judges the failure to capture Jerusalem is noted, only placing the responsibility of its conquest to the tribe of Benjamin rather than Judah. Judges 1.21:

“But the Benjamites did not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem; so the Jebusites have lived in Jerusalem among the Benjamites to this day.”

This makes little historical sense, since it seems it would be the Judeans that would be driving out the Jebusites, not the Benjamites. Some scholars think this was included to pass the blame from Judah, which is generally highly looked upon in the book of Judges, possibly as a precursor to the rise of King David which takes place in Samuel. While there could be some explanation to make these statements make sense, it is unlikely any of them have much truth to them, as any related information would have been present in Judges. It’s more likely that the author(s) of Judges combined multiple older sources into one work, despite discrepancies.

My Analysis of the Bible: Introduction

I get into many deep discussions with Christians about why I do not believe the Bible is God's Word, so I wrote a lengthy essay explaining why. I will divide each individual section into a separate post.

I do not believe the Bible is God’s word. This can be shocking (and sometimes offensive) to Christians when I tell them, as I hang out in Christian circles often. I do identify as a Christian in the sense that I follow Christ, but others have disagreed with me. I have engaged many Christians in discussion about their faith in the Bible, and many have encouraged me to write my questions down. This includes some of those questions, and addresses my beliefs that reflect them. This is not to convince or to provoke controversy. One of my favorite proverbs is Proverbs 17.19:

“One who loves transgression loves strife; one who builds a high threshold invites broken bones.”

I do not wish to cause strife, or to look for a fight to win. There are those who look to build up arguments to challenge others for their own glory, and those who look for truth which can cause controversy. I strive to belong in the latter group. While I am admittedly very comfortable with heated debates (which I could probably write another lengthy paper describing my family so you could understand exactly why that is), I have slowly come to understand that others are not. If you are offended when your faith is questioned, I would encourage you not to read this. This is a summary of my views presented rationally, which means I am critiquing views that contradict my own. I chose to structure this as an argument, but of course I can really only describe my side adequately. I have attempted to include others’ general reasoning in Part 2, but cannot go into as much detail as describing my own views. Describing my own views is a lot simpler than describing the plethora of other people’s individual views that disagree with me. I have attempted to keep from an arrogant tone, and have included others’ arguments in my explanations to demonstrate the fact that while we are arguing our beliefs regarding facts, our reasoning is certainly a gray area.

I'm Back... For Now

I have neglected my blog for a long time. It is my senior year and I have been incredibly busy with school, grad school applications, and family things. However, I am still here and hopefully can post some things I have been working on. I have a rather lengthy religion essay I have been working on for some time as well as an art project to share when I get a few free minutes to upload.

Pizza

I created my next food masterpiece: the homemade pizza. Using a simple recipe from online, I made the dough from scratch. I then used a 7 herb spaghetti sauce for the sauce, mozzarella cheese, pepperoni, and stuffed the crust with string cheese. I then melted butter and mixed in some garlic salt and spread it on the crust and pepperoni. The crust was so thick and cheesy... it was delicious.

Am I a Christian?

Hm. Define "Christian." I like the Bible, and I strive to live like Jesus. Is that enough? I get a lot of questions from Christians in my life about my beliefs. Some think I'm corrupting God's truth, others think I am merely not yet a higher level Christian (but they have faith I will get there), and a few think I am experiencing God in my own way. I don't put too much value on doctrine, I just don't see the point. Doctrine does not comfort me, it does not make me feel close to God. I don't really ponder the existence of Heaven or Hell too much. Why would I dwell on these things? I can't really understand them now anyways.

I identify as a Christian because I like Jesus, but that's not enough for many. For many, being a Christian means believing in the trinity, believing the Bible to be the inspired word of God, and believing that God is constantly interacting with my life, whether that be through blessings or the Holy Spirit. For a long time I avoided the Christian label for fear of the ignorant associations that came with it. Then I decided I would identify as a Christian, to pursue a religion the way I thought it ought to be pursued. But now I just don't care. I am not going to change who I am by what people think. I don't fit nicely into a religious label, and I like to think most others don't either. But for any readers who care, this is a list of things I believe so you can decide for yourself:

I don’t believe God interacts with us much directly.

I don’t believe the Bible is divinely inspired.

I believe in God: a creator, a divine being with a general plan or intention for mankind.  

I believe that showing selfless love for others is doing the will of God.

I believe God’s will on earth is a choice we as people can make.

I do believe that Jesus did something to mankind that is irreversible, he changed the way we view God, religion, and sin.

I don’t believe in a trinity working together as three separate persons to be one God.

I don’t believe in demons or Satan, mankind is evil by choosing to follow self interest.

I believe the world is corrupt and needs fixing.

I believe that doctrine and tradition can be important for others to justify living their loving lifestyle, but it usually doesn’t contain much value apart from that.

I believe that investigating our religious roots is important, such as studying the Bible.

I believe that following Jesus means being willing to let go of our previous lives and tradition if it is necessary to help us live with genuine love.

I believe in the real possibility that this list isn't completely correct.

Am I a Christian?

Body Modification

I just watched a documentary on Netflix called Modify. It's all about body modifications and the issues surrounding it. As a movie, it was good. It got me thinking and I learned some crazy things people do to their bodies. For those considering watching it, it's not for the squeamish. They show graphic operations on different body parts, including genitalia.

The documentary covered all kinds of issues surrounding body modification. It discussed the legality of it, the ethics of it, how it is perceived in religions, and the judgement and discrimination that comes with major modifications. As far as my opinion, I think it should be legal. Why not? If someone has the money and lack of social inhibition to make them look like a cat or a lizard then go for it. It's not imposing on my rights. Is it ethical? Well, seeing as it is not being pushed, sure. It can lead to addiction, but so can gambling and caffeine. I don't think doctors should push a penis split or a boob job, but beyond that I don't think it's wrong to allow. But what I don't understand is how people can be mad about the job discrimination. If you are putting that much work into looking different from the world, don't be angry when the world rejects you. I mean as a person, yes, you shouldn't treat someone like dirt for making themselves look different. I don't think I should be required to wear clothes when I go out in public, I think human bodies should not be seen as taboo, but I'm not going to go outside completely naked and expect people to be okay with it. If that's a stance I want to take someday, good for me. But if you are going to do that kind of stuff have common sense. I mean I wouldn't hire the cat man as a customer service worker. I might think he looks stunning, but I know he will make people uncomfortable. Whether that should be the way it is or not is irrelevant, it is what it is right now.

But I do sympathize with people who do feel judged. We all need a little rebellion from society, I think it's healthy. For some it's smoking the occasional cigarette, for some it's having eight-inch gauges. It's really not that big of a deal. We all modify our bodies to some extent. People pierce their ears, get their bodies waxed, get tattoos, etc. Even working out is a body modification. While I find radical body modifications unattractive, it doesn't really matter. It might look weird to most, but it's their body, not mine.

While I would never do this to myself, I still geeked out when  I saw it.

Social aspect aside, I would never go as far as most these people have gone. While I am not all about being completely natural (yes, I manscape some body hair), there is a big part of me that wants to look human. Putting implants on my arms or having my penis split just looks unattractive to me, it looks alien. I am more comfortable slightly modifying the body I have, like trimming some body hair, and who knows? Maybe one day I'll even get a discrete tattoo.

Bacon & Eggs

Continuing my experiments in cooking, this week I made breakfast. I scrambled a few eggs, sauteed up some potato chunks, and fried some turkey bacon. Matched with a cool glass of Nesquik, this was an amazing way to start my day.

But this was my second attempt. This was my first time scrambling eggs, and they were a little burnt earlier this week. Well, being honest everything was a little burnt. But it still tasted good. But I want my food to be art, hence the second try. I mean look at those eggs, it looks like puke. 

World Naked Gardening Day AND Cinco de Mayo

What a day. As all of you should know, it's Cinco de Mayo, a Mexican and American holiday celebrating the the Mexican victory over the French in the Battle of Puebla in 1862. Most Americans celebrate by eating Mexican food and drinking tequila. Seeing as I do not intend on getting drunk at my parent's house, I went out and got some authentic Mexican food: Taco Bell.

2 bean burritos and a cheese roll up. Yum.

But that is only the beginning. Because what just so happens to also be today? World Naked Gardening Day. BOOM! And no, for you skeptics out there I did not invent this. Don't believe me? Click here. This is actually the eighth one. I believe it falls on either the last Saturday in April or the first Saturday in May (how they choose this, I do not know). But the idea is simple: nude up and do some gardening. Do it by yourself, or with family or friends. If you don't have a garden, maybe just go out and buy a small tropical plant for your windowsill. The purpose of World Naked Gardening Day is to promote our bodies as natural, not as something taboo or only for "behind closed doors" activities. It's about living comfortably in your skin and getting closer to nature.

http://wngd.org/

But if you are like me and live in a small house with a small backyard with absolutely no privacy, what do you do? Now naturally I want to just screw the judgement and go outside au naturel and plant some shit. But I cannot do this for 2 reasons. Reason 1: it could get me into trouble with the law, and I don't want to chance it getting in the way of my future job if someone reported me. Reason 2: I am living with my parents this summer and we do not have a garden. So, what am I to do? Do I want to go out and get a little Pansy for my window for me to care for without clothes on? Yes and no. I have never been a big gardener (although I did work for a garden center for two summers) so I am not the type to just get excited to care for some simple flower. I know people like that, and good for you, do what you are passionate about, but a dainty flower ain't gonna cut it for me. So yes, I will buy a plant from the store and care for it whilst naked. But no, it's not a Pansy. I BOUGHT A VENUS FLY TRAP. That's right. I am taking World Naked Gardening Day to the next level. Why have a pretty flower when you can have a carnivorous monster plant to guard your room from pesky flies? And given the nature of Cinco de Mayo, I will name him "Ignakedio Zaragoza", after Ignacio Zaragoza, the general who led the Mexican forces to victory in the Battle of Puebla.

Taco Bell. Nudity. Venus fly trap. This may just be my best Cinco de Mayo yet.

Ignakedio Zaragoza