Chapter Two

Inherent Problems

Fatal Flaw #1: By Definition, the Bible Can’t Be “Revelation”

Prior to reading so much as the first word of the Bible, just hearing some of the claims made about it are enough to give us troubling questions that cast doubt on its vaunted status as “The Revealed Word of God”. Like many other religions, Christianity claims that its sacred text is a message of divine revelation. Such a claim about the Bible, along with some basic knowledge of its history, beg certain questions:

1. How can the Bible claim to be “revelation”?
2. Why does God need prophets?
3. Why does God need missionaries?

1. How Can the Bible Claim to Be “Revelation”?

The first of the three questions deals with the very nature of revelation and why the Bible’s claim to be such is so odd.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “revelation” as, “God’s disclosure or manifestation to a man of himself and his will.” [2]

The same dictionary defines “hearsay evidence” as, “evidence based on something that the witness has heard someone else say.” [3]

It is possible that God might be able to speak to anyone. That would be revelation. However, when one human speaks to another, claiming to be disclosing what he/she heard God say, this is not revelation for the person being spoken to, since God is no longer speaking (if, indeed, it is truly a message from God). It is, at best, by definition, hearsay. We’re under no obligation to believe such a message.

As we review the hearsay testimony of the Bible, it’s also important to consider the source. Religious leaders, who are most likely the primary authors of the Bible, can be expected to mind their personal political aspirations and lead their flock accordingly. Susan B. Anthony put it so eloquently when she said, “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” [4]

Any claim to speak for God ought to be viewed with extreme suspicion and generally is under most circumstances. For example, if someone told you the book you’re reading now is the Word of God, it’s fair to guess that you probably wouldn’t believe it. You’d probably think that person crazy. It would be unreasonable to expect anyone to believe such an extraordinary claim without proof. Yet, isn’t that exactly what some believe of the Bible with no more evidence? Why is the Bible exempted from the suspicion and scrutiny that would normally be applied to any other claim of divine revelation?

The double standard is obvious. Today, if a man were to claim that God spoke to him or that he could hear God’s voice, he’s usually thought of as crazy. However, if he lived thousands of years ago and was one of the “prophets” of the Bible, he’s thought of as a wise man.

Even putting the suspicion of the “prophet’s” honesty and sanity aside, any hearsay testimony as to divine revelation should still be taken with a proverbial grain of salt because individual passions and prejudices might distort the message. For a moment, let’s suppose you know a man who said God spoke to him and, for whatever reason, you believed him. Even still, listening to him can’t be revelation to you because God didn’t speak to you directly. You can’t be sure that this human filter that’s trying to carry God’s message is conveying it correctly. Ever played “Telephone” as a child? One child whispers a message to another, who whispers it to a third, and so on. By the time the tenth or so child is reached, the message is completely changed. Here we have a demonstration as to why hearsay evidence is typically not admissible in court and why it seems unlikely God would rely upon it as a means to communicate to all of humanity.

At best, the Bible is the hearsay testimony of those who claim to have had some sort of audience with God. This is not revelation for the one who reads the book.

Image Above: Surely God can speak for Itself without the need for priests, prophets or scripture.

2. Why Does God Need Prophets?

Why should God require or want a human messenger to speak to anyone? Humans are fallible. They might get the message wrong. They can’t deliver the message as widely or as quickly as, let’s say, a booming voice from the sky. They would not be believed as readily either. Why not, as they say in modern business circles, cut out the middleman?

Let’s assume God had an important message to deliver to all of humanity. Say this message is so urgent that our eternal salvation depends upon our receiving and believing this message. The most effective way that God could go about disclosing this message would be to speak to the entire planet at once. One can only assume that if God can write a book, It can just as easily broadcast a message. This would quickly convey the message in a way that no one could doubt. There would not be an unconverted soul on the entire planet.

The least effective way that God could go about disclosing this message would be to speak to just one person every so often and expect these prophets to deliver their messages through word of mouth to the entire world. Perhaps if this plan were put into motion after the invention of mass communication, it might have a better chance of success. Today, prophets could at least use the media to both broadcast the message and also present evidence of being a divine messenger (say, performing a trick like turning a stick into a snake on live television). Mass communication would also have the added benefit of recording technology, so the evidence could be preserved and viewed by future generations. However, if the Christians are to be believed, their god has become oddly silent in the modern age.

So according to Christianity, God has a message for us but chose the least effective method to convey this message. At this point, the “God works in strange ways” excuse is brought out, which was addressed in the previous chapter.

3. Why Does God Need Missionaries?

It might be easier to believe the Bible is the Word of God if this tome had been originally published a little more broadly. Specifically, it would be convincing if God had dropped off copies not just in the Middle East but all across the world.

If God could publish a book in the Middle East, why not also publish the same book in, say, Africa, the Americas, Australia, China and other places in the world? If the identical copies of the same book appeared in different civilizations long before these civilizations had any contact with each other, it would be a discovery that would astound anthropologists, making it difficult to come up with any worldly explanation.

Imagine if you will a group of missionaries coming to, let’s say, Japan at the time when Japan first opened her ports to foreigners. They begin telling the Japanese about the Bible only to discover that the people there were already familiar with the book. They had their own copies for thousands of years, long before they had any contact with Europe or the Middle East. This would be an astounding discovery to say the least and would lend credibility to the idea that the book is indeed from God.

Of course this didn’t happen. The Bible came originally from one culture in one area of the planet and only spread to other cultures when mortal humans introduced it. This begs some rather perplexing questions about Yahweh:

1. Why would God have an important message for all of humanity and publish that message in only one part of the world?
2. Why would God neglect to take the simple step of dropping off copies of the same book in other parts of the world?
3. Why would God, allegedly a being that is jealous and demanding of worship (at least if the biblical accounts are correct), fail to appear before other cultures and other parts of the world and stop them from worshiping “false gods and idols”?

The simplest answer to all of these largely rhetorical questions is, of course, that the Bible is the work of human mythmakers and could only be passed to other cultures through human hands. In no way does it reflect the true nature of God.

The Source of Revelation for Nature’s God

As God is defined as the Creator, it follows that the primary source or revelation, short of our speaking directly to this being, is observation of the natural universe. This source of revelation does not have the inherent problems listed for the Bible:

• The natural universe can’t be faked by any human. Humans can write books and claim divine inspiration but they can’t (yet) terraform worlds.
• The natural universe requires no prophets, for we are capable of observing it for ourselves.
• The natural universe requires no missionaries, for everyone in the world resides within this living Word of God.

Conclusion

Having observed the shaky foundation on which the Bible is constructed, we now turn in the next several chapters to a more in-depth analysis of passages in the Bible. The reader will see how they conflict with each other, with God’s universe and with our natural sense of reason, compassion and decency.

[1] Thomas Paine, “The Age of Reason” (with a biographical introduction), Editor: Philip S. Foner, (New York, 1974), p 52

[2] Webster’s Dictionary, Second College Edition, Editor: David B. Guralnik, (New York, 1986), p 1216

[3] Ibid. p 645

[4] Cliff Walker, “Positive Atheism”, third quote, accessed on June 11, 2006