Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?



This book explores some of the errors in the Bible.

We learn that the Tabernacle that was made in the wilderness had 48 frames which were 15 ft high and 2 and three quarters broad with 100 bases made of solid silver which would have weighed 96 lbs each and made up four tons also with 9 pillars of wood and the 300 for the court and the drapes and the pegs and ropes and so on were all placed in four wagons according to Numbers 8:8 which is impossible. Christians say that Numbers only says that four wagons were given not that four were used. But the next verse says that there were more wagons that could have been given for they were available to the priests who would carry the altar and things but it was decided that the priests will do this themselves. Why would the author say that they got four wagons and not mean that was all they had? It is like saying without qualification that ten cars were hired out for a wedding. People would know you mean there were no more cars and no less.

C&C observes that when you audit the figures given in Numbers 1 and 2 regarding the census of the people you learn that this would leave every married couple having at least fifty offspring. Numbers 20 suggests that the whole population of the country to become, Israel, drank water from a rock to satisfy their thirst which was due to drought. The C&C omits to tell us that the livestock had a good drink there too (v11). It is correct to say that there would have been too many people for that to happen. Christians say that only some of the people were thirsty. But that is wrong when they were all in the desert and when the story gives no hint that some were okay.

Luke 23:45 tells us that there was an eclipse over the land when Jesus died at Passover. But this was impossible because of the position of the moon for the Passover was always at a full moon (page 186).

C&C finds a problem with Matthew and Luke being so very close in many things and having so many parallels and yet one gospel has Jesus curing two madmen on one occasion while the other gospel has him curing only one. If the gospellers research was as good as Christians say, they would have been able to work out how many men there were. You need an extremely strict method of historical research to report a miracle or sign from God for it has to be verified better than a personís murderous guilt because God comes first and especially when you teach that God comes first like these gospellers did. The sloppiness is evidence that at least one of the gospels in question is not inspired by God. He didnít write it.

Other problems are the fact that the allegedly divinely inspired New Testament claims that Moses was the author of the Law and that Psalms that David could not have written were Davidís work and that Luke 19:27 has Jesus saying he would slaughter anybody who did not obey him as king and develop their talents in his service. Bible Christians say that Moses did write the Law for Jesus said it. But the law itself never gives a single hint that Moses wrote it. If Moses wrote it he would not have presented himself in such an unflattering way at times and he would have said he wrote it for he claimed to be the supreme prophet. Evangelicals have evidence against this such as the use of Egyptian words and the vividness and alleged realism of the narrative which really fails to prove anything. They always exalt the evidence they love over the evidence they donít want to see regardless of how strong the hated evidence is. More often than not the evidence they give for most of their claims is not even related to what they are hoping to prove.

Another problem is that the gospels say that Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem but Matthew alone has two animals, a donkey and a colt, to make a closer match with Zechariahís prophecy. Had the other gospellers believed Jesus used both they would have said so for the same reason. They all sought to prove that Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy. Given that the Bible says that one witness is not enough we must conclude that there is no evidence that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy as Zechariah stated. For Matthew to be Godís word he would have had to have another gospel to back him up too.

Matthew changes the all that Jesus healed in Mark to many thus reducing its force.

He was backing away from its absurdity to make it less ludicrous.

If these things are not problems as Christians maintain then anything contradictory can be reconciled.

The Christians guess the solutions to the Bible contradictions and problems and they claim that the Bible has no contradiction in it thanks to these solutions. So they make their guesses as much the word of God as they do the Bible! They hold that it is okay for Moses and Elijah to appear to Jesus, Peter, James and John as reported in the Bible spontaneously and they hold that that is what happened. But the accounts never actually say they did not try to summon them like mediums so how do we know they didnít do that? The Christians want to forget that possibility because they want to teach that Jesus and the rest did not disobey the command of God that forbade spiritualism. It is fact we need not conjecture before we can have the right to tell people that the Bible is infallible.