The Three Biggest Arguments Against the Bible—and Why They Fail

Some of the most common accusations thrown against the Bible are accusations of contradictions, scientific falsehoods, and questions about morality. But as I intend to show, they are not the silver bullets skeptics think they are. The Bible has never failed due to any claim ever made against it.

That may seem like too strong a statement, but it’s the truth. While millions of people think they have proven the Bible to be false, the truth is that they have only managed to convince themselves of that. They haven’t actually proven it in reality.

There are hundreds of supposed Bible contradictions. But there are also hundreds of resolutions that show those aren’t actually real contradictions. There are hundreds of interpretations of scientific evidence that supposedly debunk the Bible. But there are also hundreds of ways that same evidence can be seen as confirmation of it.

In the end, when someone says these things prove the Bible is false, it’s not because of the evidence; it’s because of how that person prefers to look at the evidence.

Bible Contradictions

Let’s look at the typical argument that there are contradictions in the Bible first. Then I’ll show you why it fails to actually prove the Bible is wrong, while the skeptic still sees it as if it succeeds. Reality and perception are sometimes far apart.

What is a contradiction? A contradiction is two statements that cannot possibly be true at the same time and in the same way. It is not two statements that may seem to be in conflict but have a potential resolution that harmonizes them.

When someone claims the Bible has contradictions, it is normally due to that person’s preference to believe the scriptures do not harmonize rather than the passages actually being unreconcilable.

Take these verses, for example:

It’s often asserted that there is a contradiction here. Two verses speak of people who saw God “face to face,” and one verse says that no one has seen God but the Son. But let’s look at it more closely.

A true contradiction would require the statements to be incapable of being true at the same time and in the same way. Are these statements actually saying two things that cannot be true at the same time and in the same way?

We have to see the context of the passages. That context doesn’t just include the verses immediately before and after them, either. It includes themes throughout the entire Bible. One such theme is that God is invisible (Colossians 1:15).

Obviously, you cannot see something that is invisible. But you can see the effects of something that is invisible. Or, if an invisible person were to put on clothing, you could see the clothing.

This is how we often talk about seeing someone face to face. It means we are in their presence. It doesn’t necessarily mean we are looking directly into their physical eyes with them standing stark naked in front of us.

You can see someone face to face even if they have their face covered. So the question is: What did these people actually see? Did they see the invisible God, or does the phrase mean they were in the presence of God even without seeing the full, unhidden glory of God?

If the passage saying they had seen God face to face is literal, and the passage saying no one has seen God at any time is also literal in exactly the same sense, then there is a contradiction. But if the two phrases don’t mean the same thing in the same way, then there is no contradiction.

This is where we need to learn how to understand context, because context will almost always tell us whether something should be taken literally, metaphorically, or as a figure of speech.

Though Christians are often mocked as if they dishonestly use context as a tool to magically remove any contradiction, that is simply not true. In fact, to say context can resolve anything and everything is the complete opposite of what it actually does. Context narrows meaning; it doesn’t expand it. Context adds further restraints on how you can interpret a passage. It doesn’t make it possible to interpret it any way you want.

The removal of context, a required element for understanding literature, is exactly how the skeptic is able to claim a contradiction exists. They need to remove context in order to reinterpret the passage, since the context prevents them from doing so in a way that forces a contradiction. So when they accuse the Christian of using context to force harmonization, what is actually happening is that the skeptic is trying to force a reading of the passage that isn’t accurate.

Then they accuse the Christian of dishonesty when the Christian corrects their understanding of the context, when they are the ones refusing to properly handle the text.

So what is the context of these passages?

Jacob wrestled with someone who had a physical form. He didn’t see the invisible. He saw a physical representation, or manifestation, of the invisible God. He was in His presence.

This context tells us that the phrase “I have seen God face to face” was a figure of speech meaning he was in the presence of God and saw a physical form. It was like God wearing clothing and sunglasses. Jacob didn’t see the invisible. He saw a physical manifestation.

It was a cloud that Moses saw. But again, God is invisible, not a cloud. So it wasn’t actually the true face of God. It was a representation or manifestation of God. Again, it was His presence.

In fact, Moses asked God to show Himself to him and was told that he could not see His actual face:

Every time the Scriptures speak of “seeing God face to face,” it is a representation of God, not the full glory of God. They are in His presence, not looking into His physical eyes unshielded.

So these verses don’t carry the same literal meaning as John 1:18. They are true at the same time because they are not spoken in the same way. There is no contradiction.

Yet the skeptic will often insist that there is still a contradiction even after being shown this. They choose to believe their out-of-context interpretation is the correct one because otherwise their argument fails.

This is how every accusation of a contradiction is made. Some kind of meaning is removed from the context, added to the context, or falsely represented within the context in order to force a contradiction. Sometimes it’s easy to spot. Sometimes it’s subtle. But it is always the method used.

“I’ve never seen a contradiction that believers can’t resolve, at least to their own satisfaction. It could have been this way, it could have been that. That’s what it says, but that’s not what it means. It was a copyist’s error. Whatever.” — The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Even The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible admits that supposed contradictions can be resolved in some way, even if the skeptic chooses to believe the resolution is not true. Notice the word “Whatever” at the end of that quote. It’s a handwave of any potential resolution, as if those resolutions are not even to be considered in the first place.

And that’s what happens. The Christian resolves the tension in Scripture through context, correcting the understanding of the language. But none of it matters because it’s more convenient for the skeptic to believe otherwise. They have already chosen to deny any possible solution before it is even presented.

That’s the real truth behind the accusations of the Bible having contradictions. And while there are a lot of supposed contradictions, it should become apparent after a few hundred are resolved that the accusation is not being made honestly.

Yet some will argue that every accusation must be resolved before they will believe the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. To them it is guilty until proven innocent, which is a philosophy that most people already understand to be unjust and unfair.

But what about other arguments? What about science? Does it prove the Bible is wrong?

Science Falsely So Called

In recent years, we have heard the words “trust the science” a lot. Often what is meant by that is that we should trust the interpretation of the evidence that certain authorities give us. But their interpretation of the evidence, their conclusions, are not actually science itself.

Science is a process. It’s a method for testing and determining truth about the world around us. But a method is not the same thing as an interpretation. Many people incorrectly use the word “science” to mean “the currently accepted interpretation of scientific evidence.”

In that case, “science” once said bloodletting was a valid medical procedure. It once concluded that the Earth was the center of the universe. Science, falsely so called, once even claimed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.

Clearly, the interpretation of scientific evidence is not infallible. It’s not actually science. It’s an interpretation of it.

And that interpretation flows from our beginning assumptions. If we believe there is no God who created all things, then we must assume all things had a natural beginning. That means a lot of time and chance have to come before us in order for all the puzzle pieces to come together to form a human being.

From there comes the interpretation that mankind evolved over time from lesser life forms. The age of the Earth is measured with beginning assumptions that it must have been here a long time. And the naturally impossible must be ruled out automatically.

On the other hand, if we believe there is a God, then the supernatural makes the impossible possible. Mankind could be created in a day and the Earth in six. Everything could have begun perfectly created until things changed.

What we end up with is two different interpretations of the evidence. Only one of them can be correct. Both sides claim their interpretation explains the evidence better. And it all hinges not on the evidence, because we both have the same information, but on our foundational beliefs about God.

These beliefs dictate how we handle the evidence. For example, do geological layers point to multiple periods of time with slow formation? Or do they point to a global catastrophe in which the earth was sifted in a flood? There’s evidence that supporters of both views believe supports their position. But only one interpretation can be correct.

The fact is that the secular world, in general, abandoned God a long time ago. That means there is a great deal of interpretation from those beginning assumptions layered on top of itself and being taught as fact. The world has had plenty of time to reinforce its belief systems.

The result is that today, if I were to challenge those views, the natural first response of many educated people would be rejection of my position, and sometimes of my intelligence. Not because science has proven me wrong before I opened my mouth, but because the interpretation has been ingrained as fact and treated as unquestionable.

There are many ministries devoted to sharing different interpretations of the evidence, pointing out flaws and inconsistencies in the world’s view, and providing answers to scientific objections. I cover some of them here too. But my goal is simply to provide you with enough basic information to understand why the Bible isn’t as defeated by science as some claim.

Other objections claiming that the Bible makes certain false scientific claims are typically due to poor reading comprehension. Often the Bible is claimed to say things that it doesn’t. For example, some say it claims the Earth is flat. This is due to a poor understanding of the text, not the actual claims of the Bible.

Science and the Bible are not opposed to each other. It is the beginning assumptions of the two worldviews that are opposed to each other. The question is: Which one is most likely true? And I believe the answer, through a multitude of evidence already mentioned in this unit, is that there is a God.

Biblical Morality

Another one of the most emotionally charged accusations against the Bible involves questions of morality. Philosophical questions like, “Why would a good God allow evil?” are posed in order to discredit the Bible. Accusations of immoral laws, actions, and beliefs are cast against the God of the Bible.

These objections are sometimes easy enough to refute with logic and proper reading in context. But they aren’t powerful objections because of logic. Their power lies in the emotions that drive people to make these accusations.

Fear, anger, pain, and many other emotions can blind us. Sometimes all we can see is red. Sometimes we see enemies everywhere we look, even when we are among friends. That’s where these objections come from: a poisoned understanding of reality.

The Bible does contain a lot of controversial topics. There are stories of horrible tragedies. And sometimes people misplace blame. Sometimes context is ignored. Sometimes our judgment of right and wrong is flawed. But the Bible is never wrong, nor is God unjust.

Accusations of God being a murderer, a slave master, or forcing mankind to suffer for things He caused all stem from the same problem. They do not see things clearly. They do not understand context. They do not understand purpose. They do not understand authority and sovereignty. They do not understand the reason for suffering. They only know their pain.

For example, Jesus suffered on the cross. It may seem cruel to the person who does not understand. But when you see that Jesus did it of His own accord, for a powerful purpose, and that His pain was turned into joy, then you can begin to understand that not everything is as dark as you once thought.

But until you are willing to let your guard down before God, you will not find peace. Sometimes the best thing you can do when someone is swinging at you is embrace them. And that’s what God will do if we stop fighting Him and instead try to understand. It will all begin to make sense when the tears in our eyes have been wiped away.

Through every misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and misapplication of the Bible it remains innocent.

With that said, I think it’s time to move on in our studies. If we are going to trust the Bible, we need to know where it came from. That’s what we will begin looking at in the next study.

Continue To Unit 1:11 – Can the Bible Be Trusted? How God Preserved His Word OR

Return To Christianity 101 Unit 1 – The Bible and Faith in God