I’ve always been rather obsessive. As a child, I kept meticulous lists of all my books, categorized and fully cross-referenced by author, title, and subject. As a teenager, I did the same with my CDs as well as my sheet music (playing the guitar, it turned out, made me no less of a nerd). Thus, it was no surprise to my family when I showed them the list I had been compiling of all the discrepancies I had found as I read the Bible—again, annotated and fully cross-referenced.

It started out innocent enough. I had decided that, having mocked the Bible for years, I was actually going to sit down and read it cover to cover and evaluate it for what it really was, whatever that turned out to be.

Within the first few verses of Genesis, however, I came across things that didn’t seem to align. Light, for instance, existed before the sun, moon, or stars were created. Scientifically, of course, that’s just not accurate, but I already knew that Christians considered this light to be Jesus. I resolved to accept this explanation and continue on.

I didn’t get very far.

Within that same verse, I read that vegetation existed before the sun. Remembering the basics of photosynthesis that I learned in grade school, I knew this was an impossibility. However, I decided to suppress this fact of science, figuring that, if God created everything, it was certainly within his ability to create non-photosynthetic plants. Maybe they only came to rely on sunlight much later.

Then I read that birds were created before land animals, something that clearly contradicted scientific knowledge. Regardless of beliefs in evolution, it is well known that animals were on the ground long before they flew above it. However, I conceded that if the Bible were truly the inerrant word of God, then maybe it was possible that it was science that had, in fact, erred. Once again, I carried on.

I had only gotten to the second chapter of Genesis (still on page 1) before I found something that was entirely irreconcilable: the statement that man was created before animals. The fallacious nature of this statement lay not just in scientific knowledge—which I had begrudgingly agreed to temporarily suspend—but in the fact that the previous chapter had declared that animals were created before man. Now, the Bible hadn’t only contradicted science—it had contradicted itself!! What happened to the Word of God being inerrant and infallible!? What happened to all the claims that erroneous texts were actually the result of erroneous reading and interpretation!? In this case, there was nothing to interpret—this was, plain and simple, a blatant contradiction!

Nor was this an isolated instance. Throughout the remainder of the Bible, I found example after example of such internal contradictions, plus many more contradictions of science (which I had reclaimed, sorrowfully apologizing for ever having doubted her) and a host of problems of other natures. Initially, I began a list simply so that, coinciding with my aforementioned compulsive nature, I could keep track of what I had read and where I needed to make further inquiries, but eventually it became obvious to me that the “inerrant Word of God” was neither.

Ultimately, the more I read, the less I believed, but nevertheless, I was still intrigued by one question: why do people really believe all this? When I finished the last chapter of Revelation, I began again (trying a different translation this time). Amazingly, my list continued to grow each time I re-read the Bible. Far from having exhausted all possible contradictions, I found that, if anything, I was finding more the second time through.

Now, I certainly make no claim to be a biblical expert. There have been numerous instances when I indeed found the error to be in myself instead of in the text. For example, it seems incongruous that the centurions would have refrained from breaking Jesus’ legs to make him suffer more unless you have an understanding of the physiological effects of crucifixion.

Also, certain blunders I left off the list simply because I knew the exact defense Christians would use, and, as awkward as they would seem, they are just adequate enough to dodge further scrutiny. The classic, and perhaps overused, example is that of where Cain would have found a wife if his was the only family in existence. The standard Christian response is that she was ‘obviously’ a distant relative. There is nothing that says Adam and Eve didn’t have other children, and therefore Adam’s descendants could have already begun covering the lands. The Bible merely spoke of the children of Adam and Eve who were essential to the plot: Cain, Abel, and Seth.

I could point out that the meticulous nature of biblical genealogies (including numerous names of children that are in no way ‘essential to the plot’) indicates that, if there were other offspring of the first couple, they should have been mentioned. However, the argument goes nowhere since the Christian’s claim, as pathetic as it is, is just plausible.

There are also others that I left out for obvious reasons. For example, when Christians make the claim of errors being in the faulty understanding of the reader, they commonly use an exchange something like this:

Let me show you how far off those crazy heathens are when it comes to the Bible. They will tell you that it says right in the Bible, “There is no God.” And it does—right there in Psalm 14:1. What they don’t seem to realize though, is that if they would read the whole verse—and not just part of it as they are so wont to do—they would see that it really says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

Now, obviously I don’t cite Psalm 14:1 because, quite simply, it’s a stupid example. Despite its nearly ubiquitous occurrence in Christian propaganda, I have never come across a single critic who has actually used this example. I can only assume that the verse is used as an allusion, simultaneously providing Christians with an excuse to call the atheist a fool.

I also refrained from including many of the verses which detail the horrible atrocities committed by God’s chosen people since these would only elicit the stock response that, while the Bible faithfully records the history, it does not necessarily condone all of the actions of inherently sinful men. I once received an E-mail with “Did you know the Bible says this!!!!!!” in the subject field. Within, it was noted that the smell of burning animals is said to be “pleasing to the LORD.” The Bible contains instructions on how to properly sell your daughter into prostitution. And of course, it is full of mandates to rape, slaughter, pillage, and plunder. While these are issues that will be discussed in Part 1 of this book, I did not feel that they were best placed in a section geared towards fallacies and contradictions.

The Bible is something that is subject to interpretation—otherwise, it wouldn’t exist in so many different languages—and the only way for you to decide what it means to you is to read it for yourself. I could include the full quotation every time I reference a passage, carefully selecting which translation best suits my message and omitting the greater part of the context, but this would be counterproductive to my whole intent. If you want to know what the Bible says, if you want to be able to reference it yourself, then read it! Don’t take my word on what I think it says. Don’t take some preacher’s word on what he thinks it says. Don’t even trust what Grandma taught you when you sat in her lap as a small child. Read it, and think for yourself for once.

Next Chapter: Then where did it all come from?