Over forty authors. Different regions. Centuries apart. Different political and social worlds. One core belief. One holy book.
They were bound by shared faith, knowledge from earlier writings, and stories passed down orally. Each proclaimed a truth, and through reinterpretations, created a book with a consistent message, claimed to be divine, but not without contradictions in the text, and in the belief, and the doctrine.
The first of such many contradictions begins in Genesis 1:2— "And the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of the lord moved upon the face of the waters." Pre-existing water contradicts the concept creatio ex nihilo—A theology concept developed in the 2nd Century CE, and was never explicit stated in the bible. Developed by Theophilus of Antioch and a few others to combat the idea of Dualism, Gnosticism; establishing God's sovereignty and omnipotence, and the idea of a God who isn't limited. But, if truly water had existed before creation had begun, then hydrogen and oxygen must have as well, along with their individual physical and chemical properties, including the properties of water; if indeed all of this—matter—existed, then there must have been laws governing them… which leads us to the question: who made the law?
But, perhaps, there wasn't any law. Perhaps there was total chaos, and that's where God came in… It would be safe to agree on that. But again, if God is a spirit, then that possess a problem: how did a transcendent, non-corporeal being instantiate the existence of a material world?
In earlier biblical text, God and Angels were never acknowledged as spiritual beings, that idea developed much later. In fact, the early texts shows that angels were capable of intimacy, establishing relationship with man, eating, and procreating, as in the time of the Nephilim (It is worth noting that while there are arguments on who the sons of God are, the book of Enoch explicitly identify them as Fallen angels called the watchers.)
The early biblical text also fails to portray God as all knowing as in the account of the second creation—God created man, and upon seeing that man was lonely, he created animals (In pairs: Male and Female) and gave them to man to name. He only thought of creating a woman when he saw that man still hadn't gotten a help meet. Not only does this story raises question on God's omniscient, it also reflects the patriarchal view during the time of the author, a bias that runs through the bible even to 1 Timothy 2:13—14 (which does not only proves the author of 1 Timothy failure to identify the problem, but also that the authors of the text in the new testament, though from different centaury and region, shared the same belief as the authors of the old testament, and the unified message was not Divine but a mere human attempt to shape their belief—the last point will explain this better.)
Other instances that fail to portray God as omniscient are found in the book of Job—God's famous bet, and the test of Job's faith (we may conclude that God did know the result of the bet, but then we'd fail to explain why Satan would agree to a bet against a being knowing full well that being is all-knowing). Secondly, Abraham's test (Again this can be countered by the argument of free-will: God's knows the consequences of every action, but not the actions we are going to take). Thirdly, the last I'm going to give, is the famous story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where God was seen negotiating with Abraham on the numbers of righteous men, he'd find to spare the city… and later it was said that he sent his angels to investigate the city… why the investigation and negotiation? Seems unnecessary for a being that knows all.
Of all, lastly and the most important contradiction worth pointing out is the story surrounding the birth of Jesus, which fails to show God's undying love as proclaimed in John 3:16, but successfully raises concern about his priorities. Mathew supposedly in an attempted to unified Jesus Christ to the prophet Hosea's saying: "…Out of Egypt, I call my son…" came up with narrative of Herod and the Magi and Joseph and Mary's flight to Egypt, except the story just shows a God who is willing to let countless baby die in order to save the son he sent to earth to die. Again, this problem can be pushed aside by agreeing that Mathew made it all up, and tried to re-tell the story of mosses through Jesus and liken it to the prophecy of the Old Testament. But, that raises another question—How Holy and Divine is the book?
If truly a Divine and all-knowing God—a God of Order, all just and perfect, mighty and great, lovely and kind—was behind the bible, using the men who held the pen to reveal himself to us, then why so many chaos? And why does the bible successfully achieve the opposite, and shows us a proud God, a God who would send an evil spirit to torment a man whose crime was to spare a life after being told to destroy an entire city, and then kill a child for the sins committed by his father. A God who makes questionable choices and Law, and dominate through fear and guilt and shame and chaos.
In all, I do not discredit the teachings of the bible, neither do I claim that it was all made up and everything in it are lies. However, I do acknowledge the possibility that it is a book shaped and inspired by the belief and culture of its writers. If any Christian today was to write something about God, they'll draw their inspiration from the Bible, and the message would align with the teachings of the Bible, despite the gaps in century, region, and language barrier.
If we have to reinterpret every saying and prediction, in an attempt to find truth, the absurdity is that we'll always find it. That's why faith is deadly—it requires sacrificing logical thinking and truth, and lot of reinterpretations to fits one's beliefs. I doubt that a creator, if they exist at all, would build a system and create an institution based on faith while giving us brains that constantly ask, reason, think and doubt. But if truly a creator like that does exist, then let me be damned to hell.
Martin stuart
Disclaimer: This book is entirely fiction. Names, people, and places are invented. It is written for the sole purpose of entertainment, and does not tackle societal or political issues. It does not claim to be historically accurate, nor is it intended to challenge anyone's belief.
Hell wants her back