ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Bible: A Solid Foundation for Atheistic Belief

Updated on January 14, 2012
That's right, pick and choose your verses carefully.
That's right, pick and choose your verses carefully. | Source

I had been a Christian for a great majority of thirty three years before I actually read the bible. Before that I always thought of it as the unchallenged word of god. It was something abstract I could turn to in times of need, but even then I would only recite specific verses that had been taught to me as a child in bible school, or I would recall some parable or story from the bible that was supposed to offer inspiration and real help. Now I know why.

I won't lie and tell you that I was a devout Christian right up until the bitter end. No. I always had doubts, but they were always quieted with that tested and true threat of going to hell if I questioned the lord, so my doubts never flourished into anything more than curiosities. It takes a strong will to face the truth, though, and it's not easy realizing that your whole life has been based on lies.

The Best Evidence for Non-Belief

The bible is the absolute single best piece of evidence against god, Christianity, and religion in general. I won't beat around the bush with that fact. If the fact that there are no dinosaurs in the bible doesn't kick start you into some doubt, all the errors, discrepancies, inconsistencies, impossible lineages, and just blatant lies should do the trick. And apart from all that there's also all the immoral behavior to come to terms with if you are going to base a moral life on this book. It's a complete and utter contradiction. It's almost as if someone did read the bible in it's entirety very early on and then decided what things could and should never be talked about. Oh, wait, that did happen...it was called the Council of Nicaea.

The Creation of the Trinity

Mistakes are Only Human

Just from the standpoint of someone who prefers not to be lied to, the dishonesty in the creation of this religion is flabbergasting. But there is no end of excuses and justifications for it. Well, that's all good and fine, but back to the bible itself. On the very first page the errors commence and they don't stop until the very end of the book. It is one fluid mistake after another. This is ultimate proof that the bible was not divinely inspired but was written by men with the knowledge and understanding of the time. My favorite discrepancy, well, one of my favorites, is the one about Cain.

Genesis

4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

4:15 And the LORD said unto him, therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

This one is almost too embarrassing to point out, but, aren't Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel the ONLY people in the world? So, who can possibly find Cain and kill him, since he just killed Abel and all that's left are his mom and dad. But it gets better!

Genesis

4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

So, how is there a "land of Nod" if Adam and Eve and their children are the only people on the planet? And where did Cain's wife come from? Boy is there egg on god's face! But, that's okay, god, mistakes are only human.

New Testament is Full of Mistakes, Too

Yes! For those Christian Apologists who blow off the Old Testament, guess what? The New Testament has just as many mistakes, if not more. The one that stands out most prominently in my mind is the genealogy of Jesus. Genealogy of Jesus? I though he was supposed to be the son of god, but oh, well.

There's Mathew's version and then there's Luke's version. Both are consistent until you get to David. After David they are completely different and Mathew's is much shorter than Luke's, but they both end up with Joseph as Jesus' father. Hmm...once again, I thought Jesus was the son of god, not any mortal, so why bother with a genealogy at all? Obviously, there was no divine inspiration here, either, or god would have nipped this one in the butt.

The Bible, Moral?

The bible may be many things but a guide to a moral life it is not. This is a book full of lies, jealousy, hate, vengeance, misogyny, incest, genocide, murder, rape, and it goes on and on and on. In fact, there are so many examples to choose from to illustrate this point that I have a hard time choosing just one. I find, however, that slavery is about as immoral a concept as there is. The fact that the god in the bible, instead of declaring to his people from the get go that slavery is wrong and an unacceptable practice for any period in time, he perpetuated it with rules and laws that allowed slavery to go on for centuries because morons that follow the bible used it to justify this horrible practice. But don't take my word for it.

Exodus

21:20-21 When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

But the New Testament promotes slavery, too.

1 Timothy

6:1-2 Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

Luke

12:47-48 The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

And yet, there is no lack of people, supposed moral Christians, defending these verses. I find that quite disturbing.

The Conclusion?

The only conclusion that anyone can come to is that this is a very flawed text and by no means is it a moral guide for anyone. If there is indeed a god and if that god is indeed the god of the bible, I have no desire to serve or worship him and I would rather spend an eternity in the fiery pits of hell. I do have a choice, and if I have to choose between serving a moral depraved monster like this or following my own instincts and doing what I know is right and moral, I will follow my own instincts. So, you can stop wasting time trying to prove that he does or doesn't exist. That is quite irrelevant. The true question is whether you want to worship this monster or not.

References

The Bible, any Bible. Just read it.

Please Vote Up!

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 5 years ago from Southern California

      Emma

      These were some good examples of the anomalies in the Bible(s).

      I once took apart Genesis, line by line and I stopped at day 4 because no one would comment on it.

      The whole concept starts with God as a Father, and Jesus as a Son, and then there is a Spirit, but that doesn't come into play until the New Testament.

      Without knowing much about the existence of God, it is difficult to understand anything in the bible.

      Why are there no female deities in the bible(s)?

      If God is unknown, and Angels are the only ones who have contact with God, is God also an Angel? Maybe the King of Angels?

      The bible never mentions the number of Angels that exist. Is that important, yes because one third of them don't follow God.

      There are so many questions, and so few answers.

      I suspect that there won't be many answers in the comments here.

      voted up

    • profile image

      AbigailM. 5 years ago

      I recognize myself in this text. I was born in a christian family in Central America in a very religious environment. I had doubts much of the time, and pushed them away with the fear of going to hell. I have not read the bible, but had a long time thinking about my believes and what happens around the world. I had a hard time letting go of my believes and had a harder time telling my mother about my changed believes (she is a devoted christian). I just decided to stop thinking about religion, if there is a God or gods they may exist but I do not want to have anything to do with religion anymore. I like this article (?)... it is well written.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 5 years ago

      How do you decide what is moral and what is not moral?

      Since are saying the bible isn't moral, what are you basing that off of?

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Thank you for your comments guys. Yes, ib radmasters, I doubt there will be too many "answers" posted here, too. The bottom line really is, whether there is or isn't a god, is he the kind of god you want to worship?

      And, AbigailM, I can certainly sympathize with your situation. My parents were both devoted Christians. My mom passed a few years ago, so now it's just my dad that I have to deal with, but I refuse to be bullied into a religion with such atrocious beginnings. Thanks for the vote ups!

      Millercl, every human has a thing called empathy. This is what dictates what is moral. If you witness your fellow human being abused, hurt, treated unfairly, you naturally feel compelled to help him. You don't get morality out of a book, and you certainly shouldn't get it from the bible.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 5 years ago

      How do you know we all have empathy?

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Well, let's see. Empathy in necessary in order to feel compassion. Unless you are a sociopath, and there are some that are, but they tend to be serial killers and rapists, by the age of two a human should start showing signs of empathy, i.e, compassion. There have been studies on this and MRI's that confirm it. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule, but like I said, a NORMAL human starts showing signs of empathy as early as 2.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 5 years ago

      So do you think there is a universal empathy that we all have and share?

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Uh, no, I don't think I ever said that. You are implying "universal" as in lumping everyone into the same boat kind of thing? No. Empathy, just like any other human quality, can differ from person to person. If you are trying to suggest that morality without a god isn't possible, you are failing. It is absolutely possible. There are people that have existed without ever having even heard of "god" as defined in the bible, and they have had empathy. The bottom line is that whether god exists or not, do I want to follow him? The answer is NO. And your argument, I think it is an argument, about empathy being universal is absurd and does little for your claim. Empathy is a basic human emotion. That is a fact. Argue with it all you want, but there it is.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 5 years ago

      I think empathy might be a little too fast and loose to really be considered as a basis for morality.

      But real quick, could you define what empathy is for me?

    • Druid Dude profile image

      Druid Dude 5 years ago from West Coast

      Yo! Sweetheart...WE ALL ARE IN THE SAME BOAT!!! It's taking on water...and nobodies bailing. They want to argue about the nature of the water.

    • profile image

      AbigailM 5 years ago

      Well, I wish you luck with your dad, and my condolences for your mom.

      I have not read the whole Bible, though I did read parts that I did not think were.. moral (?). I was told that the bible did contradict itself and that you should be careful on what you read in order to protect your faith, and that kept me in "faith" for sometime.

      What really made me change was not the contents of the bible, were other thing. Between them is that 1. the bible is very very old. It may have helped people in the past and be interpreted in good ways too (by pastors/priests who choose what to preach). I think that the bible might have been made to guide people in the past, but it is too old now for our present. 2. There are SO many religions in the world, how can I claim that christianism is the right path? 3. Many things have been done in the name of religion, both positive and negative. I think the negative actions have just taken religion as an excuse, and may even be actions that may not have been taken if religion did not exist... and the good things, well... we all can act positively without the need of a religion...

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Millercl, I already did that and I think you are just wasting my time. Appreciate the comments but if you have nothing further to add, I think we are done.

    • bizandculture profile image

      bizandculture 5 years ago from Rapid City, SD

      Hi Emma. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You've obviously done a lot of reading and a ton of thinking. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I too have had struggles with areas of the Bible's writing. I've come to the conclusion that there is a good God back there behind all the confusing texts. I don't know if you want to hear any responses to your thoughts or not... may I offer a thought? Since you're writing about this, even though you're expressing some distaste and anger toward the Bible, I get the impression maybe you'd LIKE for God to be loving and desirable, but you're pretty much not seeing it in the Bible. I'll throw out a thought only about one of your observations - the morality of the Bible. Honestly, I find a lot of the Old Testament "civil" law distasteful. Exodus 21 (the portion about slaves) seems to support slavery and demean the slaves. There's another possibility, though. I think God stretches each culture/time period a little bit toward a more moral position. Exodus 21 is just bizarre in its comments about slaves, but IN GENERAL, the Old Testament law pulled that society to a higher level of morality than they had at that time. Other ancient writings from that time period also present a pretty demeaning picture of morality in general and slavery in particular. I mean the Big Ten (10 commandments) laid out a pretty admirable sense of morality - love the Lord your God, don't lie, don't steal, don't lust after your neighbor's spouse, so on and so forth. If you compare Exodus 21 to New Testament writings, I see a different attitude. The attitude toward slavery isn't great in the New Testament period (probably 2,000+ years later than Exodus), but it's not quite as bad as in the Old Testament period. And I think God is pulling people closer to a good form of morality. The writer in the New Testament (Paul in the case of the 1 Timothy text) is addressing the needs of slaves who are Christians. By simply writing a couple of letters, Paul knows he isn't going to end slavery in the ancient Mediterranean region, but he can help slaves serve God in the best way that they can... pointing their less noble masters in the direction of God. Paul isn't condoning slavery, he's just helping slaves deal with their undesirable situation, focused as well as possible on eternal things. The tiny book of Philemon in the New Testament is a letter by Paul to a Christian master, encouraging him to take back a runaway slave who became a Christian. Paul says, don't take him back as a slave, take him back as a brother. Luke's point is totally different. He's comparing how a servant can address his responsibilities (all the time thinking of US, the listener, as servants of God). And remember the main slave in the story was beating his fellow slaves. So Luke is recording words that say we have a responsibility and need to live up to it. Slavery isn't really the focus of Luke's point.

      Then moving forward, remember that it was followers of Jesus who initiated the fight to abolish slavery, first in England in the 1800's, then in America. Each time, God draws the culture more toward a higher morality. If God were to tell us what perfection looks like, it would be so unattainable, we'd never even try. He nudges us a little at a time, I think.

      I'm sorry I've gone on so long, Emma. I don't know if my words offer a different perspective or not. I really see a loving God at work behind the words of the Bible, even though it's pretty bizarre at times. I wish you the best and hope that you're able to identify God as being really good, very moral, and really loving you.

      Thanks again for your thoughts, Emma.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      bizandculture, no, I am not hoping that there is a good god. I would hate to feel like some other worldly power is presiding over my every move. And your response to the slavery issue and how it offered a "better way at the time" is completely ridiculous. If god is supposed to be all knowing, all merciful, loving and just, he would know that making slavery even the slightest bit okay would lead to horrendous crime and injustice. And this is only slavery. That's not to mention all the genocide. I didn't even touch on that topic. There is NO excuse for slavery being okay in the bible. NONE. Absolutely not. And you trying to justify it is shameful. So, no, sir, your excuses are falling upon deaf ears.

    • profile image

      AKA Winston 5 years ago

      The Old Testament is a compilation of a bunch of legends and myths created for entertainment by a bunch of nomadic sheepherding desert dwellars who would gather around a fire at night and tell stories, but who were too ignorant of sanatation issues to figure out how to separate their fecal matter and their food supply.

      The New Testament is the work of salesman pitching a new religion.

    • Chris Qu profile image

      Chris Qu 5 years ago

      Interesting, stuff. What I think is horrifying, is that despite your article containing a fair number of quoted passages, that it only just begins to touch on the surface of this iceberg.

      As a side note, I came across a source several weeks ago. In the bible, God kills between 2 and 25 million people, depending on how conservative one is in estimating the number of people in the entire populations god *wiped out*. Satan? He killed exactly ten people: the sons and daughters of Job.

      The Christian God a monster? Indeed, so.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      Asimov's Guide to the Bible is fun reading too.

      But really, all you need to do is look at this logically to realize that it is nonsense. Even if the Bible had absolute consistency, it is still plainly not true. It's just superstition and wishful thinking.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Thanks, Chris for the comment. Yes, I've seen that somewhere, too. Funny how the "bad guy" is Satan, huh. I think that says it all. Tyrants often do try to shine the evil spotlight elsewhere.

      And Pcunix, yes, it is absolute nonsense. I mean, just read the very first page and an educated person will immediately start to see the embarrassing errors. Then you get to the good stuff about genocide and selling humans into slavery and killing sons in the name of god. Yeah, lot's of moral rich literature there. If any of it did happen you'd have to be left feeling sickened, not enlightened.

      Thanks for the comments guys.

    • limpetparasite profile image

      limpetparasite 5 years ago from Canada

      "blasphemy emmaspeaks blasphemy! your soul will definitely burn in hell once you are done in this earth!!!"

      ahem, did that sound like old school biblical scolding? apologies if that expression made a sour note, it was actually done to me once when i questioned my religious education teacher a long time ago, she was a marian nun so you get the picture.

      my name is limpet, and i am a catholic by choice. but you are right ofcourse, i could not agree more on the point that the bible once started as a compilation of oral history of a race, their lineage and family and the generations of their descendants... a jew would probably be able to explain it more thoroughly than me. they have historians and scholars who spends their lifetime trying to trace the roots of these written artifacts.

      another fact i should add is that it is not just the bible, the koran, the dead sea scrolls and a lot of other old books written by different era, different times and differently translated depending on the writers mood at those times. these collections are the surviving history of the lives and time of people living in this earth thousands of years ago.

      then another fact i have again to point out, and now i will be specific to what version of the bible i am using. what i have is a king james bible, a book translation and compilation by again scholars of the 17th century (1611 ad) the words written were specifically intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the church of england and its beliefs of those times...

      as you can now very well follow the trend i am making, i am trying to answer your hub in a way that you should be able to understand. the good book has been used in the service of history, in the service of the king, in the service of religion and various other causes good or bad throughout history. it is an artifact that has survived even until today.

      but alas, it is just another book to you now emmaspeaks. another dust maker in the attic if you have not thrown it already... you might have believe in the content of it once, all those stories of human failings and triumph not so different from our own, some we can even draw parallels... but it has lost meaning to you, and there is no need to further degrade it to the level of bitter despise.

      it is not worth it, you have better things to worry about than defaming such a book, if not for its contents, then at least respect it for surviving the testaments of time.

      limpet

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      "The good book" as you call it, may have been used in the service of kings in the past, but we know enough today, thankfully, that we don't have to rely on such nonsense. Second of all, the fact that it is an artifact, I am not disputing, and has very little to do with all the atrocities that it basically allows and perpetuates. You basically contradict yourself, limpet. You say I should not waste my time defaming it, but went to all the trouble to tell me how important it has been throughout history. Well, for that very reason, Limpet, because it HAS been important in history and people have and still do follow it literally, I must continue writing about it. I don't know, however, if I am defaming it. I think it has done that all on its own. Thank you for the comment, even though it did not address the issue I wrote about, which was the errors and inconsistencies in the bible.

    • Kristeen profile image

      Christine 5 years ago from Michigan

      emmaspeaks, Are you truly happy? Are you comfortable in your own skin? Are you good with the fact that you will die someday? Are you good with the fact that the 60-90 or so years on this earth is all there is for you? I am at the 60 point now myself and let me tell you, they fly by like nothing. Do you have a reason to live or are you just living to die. If that is the case than why live at all? If there is no hope then there is nothing to live for - no reason to keep going.

      Its not what I would choose, but if that is what you want then fine, but just one thing - I love God. I believe in God. God made the ultimate sacrifice for me and for all people in the death of His Son on the cross. I love Him more than words can describe and it hurts me deep down inside when people mock Him and defame His holy name and His Word so I won't just sit back and listen to it without standing up and claiming Him as my creator and my Father. You believe what you want. You burn your Bible if that's what you want to do, but why do you have to make a big issue of it? Are you trying to drag others along with you? It seems to me that you are trying to cover your own fears by insulting God. Let me tell you - it won't work. You believe what you want, but when your life is over you won't have the pretty smile on your face that I see in your profile picture. The Bible is History ("His Story") like it or not.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Kristeen, fear of death is NOT a good reason to cling to a barbaric text and an equally barbaric god. That has to be the saddest, most pathetic reason to believe in anything. I am very happy, ma'am, and simply believing that you will get a life after death does not make it a reality. You are deluded. This is the only life you get so use it well. I'd rather not spend it believing nonsense and lies.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      I'm 64. The years didn't fly by; I lived them. I lived them fully because I ave enough intelligence to know that when it's done, it's done. Wasting your life with nonsense is surely the most foolish thing anyone can do.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Thank you, Pcunix. I feel sorry for people that are waiting to "live life" after death. That has to be the biggest con ever invented. You are buying into something that has NEVER been proven and that you can only get AFTER you die. Well, how convenient for god. he doesn't have to show you anything up front and you don't get anything until after you die. Hey, I have some ocean front property to sell you in Missouri. You can't see the ocean yet, but if you are patient and live long enough, the ocean will come to you. wink wink.

    • Piper Bennett profile image

      Piper Bennett 5 years ago

      There are a lot of discrepancies in the Bible. I have to respect you for being very blatantly honest and really thinking about what religion you were raised in rather than some people who have no idea why they worship who they do. I would just like to point out a couple of things. Adam and Eve are labeled as the first man and first women on earth, but many scholars of the Bible argue that "Man" and "Woman" could have been symbolic of a whole society or race of humans. Also, the incest thing with Cain is an issue with a lot of people. But keep in mind that Cain existed at the beginning of human civilization. If reproducing with a family member was necessary to produce children and keep the human race going, then I think Caveman Cain wouldn't have seen a problem with it. It was an issue of survival. Thanks.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Ma'am, the beginning of civilization? And when was that? 6,000 years ago? Caveman Cain? Yeah, honey, I can't argue with you, it would be more of a slaughter than a debate. Put the bible down and read a science book.

    • limpetparasite profile image

      limpetparasite 5 years ago from Canada

      dear emmaspeaks,

      thank you for replying and i will try and provide you *excuses* for my shortcomings, the reason why i did not reply in a way you think i should is because it is futile for me to explain your argument... the words i write will hold no meaning, this *good* book for you now is a worthless nonsense full of errors and inconsistencies.

      i was not contradictory in my statement. the bible and perhaps any religious artifacts that has survived and hold sway over peoples lives are in fact very much important... to those people who still believes in them. and there are a great deal many who still believes, people very much like myself, who feeds on the words as if they were the basic step ladder towards a higher enlightenment. i treasure my good book with my heart and soul no matter what is being said against it.

      but again ofcourse, you who no longer believe in them, and there are also other people like you, not many though... who knows enough or being modern enough to understand that it is being used as an instrument for atrocities.

      believe what you may. because by writing against it, you already are defaming it, there is no 'i dont know if', lukewarm is not an option here. being an atheist means exactly that, you are against all religion not just christianity. but the bible is as good a start as any, a tough challenge worthy of your intellectual capacity, you'd probably be laughing your tears off if you were to pit your arguments on sacred cows and monkeys.

      so i wish you luck emmaspeaks and the best of intentions in your zeal in unmasking this conspiracy that has plagued more than 90% of humanity.

      you are special that way ^_^

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      No, Limpet, the bible and any other historical texts are important to any historian, such as myself, not just people who believe in them. That's why I study them. As for the rest of your comment, again, you fail to make a point. I am an atheist, but I have studied several religions. And every religion is different so they deserve different arguments. I am picking on Christianity right now because I can. I am educated enough to critique it so I will. I can do the same to a number of other religions, and believe me, I will.

    • limpetparasite profile image

      limpetparasite 5 years ago from Canada

      yes my dear emmaspeaks, i hear and believe you in that respect without a doubt. limpet

    • Kristeen profile image

      Christine 5 years ago from Michigan

      Why do you have to "pick" on any religion emmaspeaks? Why can't you just be happy in your own skin (Atheism) and leave it at that?

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Well, that was a useless comment, Kristeen, but I let it post anyways. And since I live in a free country I'll "pick" on any religion I want...because I can.

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 5 years ago

      It is arguing and reasoning like that, that makes you the bright intellectual star you are emma.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Glad you agree Millercl.

    • Andrew Simoes profile image

      Andrew Simoes 5 years ago

      Hi Emma,

      Discrepancies in the New Testament are easy to find. There are several immoral stories in the New Testament as well : Ananias and Sapphira is one. (They were killed in a very dramatic manner) Furthermore, Paul's letters come across as extremely harsh and many of them seem to carry bigoted undercurrents when taken literally.

      Nevertheless, the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) has always been meant to be taken in a historical context. For example. the gospels according to Matthew and Luke were written a hundred years after Christ's death - one (and the most credible theory) is that they were both based on Mark's gospel.

      If you look at the old testament, there are many genealogies listed .. it was a literary device of sorts, a method to begin a work, with a very definite purpose in mind. The point that is trying to be made in both these genealogies is that Jesus was from the house of David (son of David) and also from, in Luke's case, Adam (son of Man) . Yet he was the Son of God. That is all that is to be garnered from this genealogyand if your parents were devout Christians, they have failed to instruct (or at any rate get you instructed) in this very fundamental point within Bible study.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Have to disagree with you, Andrew. As a history student, I know for a fact that the bible is not a historical text it's a hagiography. I wrote a hub about it. You might check it out if you want to. Thanks for the comment though.

    • Andrew Simoes profile image

      Andrew Simoes 5 years ago

      I never said it was a historical text : it's far from one.

      What I did say, is that every part of the bible is meant to be taken within its historical context. Meaning that if you are reading Paul's letter to the Corinthians, you have to take into account the history of what was going on at the time (which you can source from other, historically accurate texts) and set Paul's letter against those occurrences to properly understand it.

    Click to Rate This Article