Paul Poulton considers some of the arguments against the Bible

Paul Poulton

I don't think it's just me who has noticed that at the moment there seems to be a plethora of material around giving believers in God reasons why they really ought not to believe in a supreme being? Now this could be just me, because I am a Christian and notice it more, but it seems the Bible in particular is singled out for special treatment. The Judeo-Christian scriptures are picked apart, with what we are told is precision and flaws within it are held aloft for all to see.

Christians have always known that there are people around who don't believe the Bible, we take it for granted. The phrase "the chosen few" has resonated with many isolated Christians who feel they are outnumbered by the people around them who do not share their faith. In the past there may have been an unwritten rule that the two parties, believers and unbelievers, leave each other to get on with it and don't encroach too far past each other's front lines. And if anyone did go a touch too far into the other's camp it was usually the believers doing the trespassing. But now events seem to be turning around the other way; the Christian camp seems like fertile soil for atheists to plant their seeds in.

I'm always prepared to read material that informs me why the Bible cannot be trusted. I have noticed that reasons why I ought not to believe the Bible often start with the first book of the Bible. "A careful reading of Genesis," I am told, "reveals two conflicting versions of creation." That's interesting because I do in fact read the Bible with care, and have enjoyed studying the book of Genesis in particular. I'm unable to give the "two stories of creation" theory any credence because as soon as we compare Genesis chapters 1 and 2 with what we have been told by science, archaeology, geology and history, they make perfect sense and follow the route of books everywhere following each other chronologically.

It seems self-evident, owing to the serious and fundamental nature of Genesis, that the compilers of Genesis wanted the people who read Genesis to believe what they are reading. The Hebrew scribes were extremely serious and protective of their work. If the compilers of Genesis thought there were two different stories of how God made life, then the last thing they would do is put them side by side, which would confuse people rather than encourage them to believe what is written.

Another reason not to believe the Bible that I recently read was that there are two quite different genealogies for Adam's offspring (Genesis 4:17-26 and 5:1-28). I'm surprised that this is used as an argument: the first example cites Adam's son Cain's genealogical line. Cain was found guilty of murder and was exiled, thus ruling himself out of the genealogical line. Consequently Adam fathered another son called Seth, who continued the line, which eventually made its way to Jesus being born. There is no problem with the two genealogies.

Probably the most popular argument is the way the Bible starts. "In the beginning God created." Why is there no explanation where God came from? "Who made God?" Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University John Lennox informs us that when atheists ask us to tell them where God came from it does prove one thing - "if they had a better argument they would use it."

A created God would not be God.

When the Bible is dissected like an animal in a laboratory, there's something about the procedure that never feels quite right. The scriptures will help us if we use them as they are meant to be applied. We are told that the crowds were amazed as Jesus taught them because he taught them with authority, and not as their teachers of the law. The Bible works when we read it with faith in our hearts.

I have a friend called Richard who told me why he wasn't a Christian and gave me his reasons why he couldn't become a Christian. Some of his reasons seemed like big obstacles - he was an atheist, and some were small - I remember Richard telling me that he could never join in the hypocrisy of taking communion in church when the wine we drank wasn't really wine at all. (Which it wasn't in the church I attended.) But Richard changed quite dramatically; somehow God's love reached through all his 'reasons not to believe' and transformed his whole life. Suddenly all of Richard's arguments, big and small, fell like a house of cards in the wind. He went on to start a Christian aid agency that has helped children around the world. Working in over 18 countries and supporting more than 40 projects, "We" says the agency's web site, "believe in showing God's love in action".
Once God's love touched Richard's heart he seemed more than happy to join in communion, and I never heard him mention non-alcoholic blackcurrant juice again, it didn't seem important any longer. Reasons not to believe take on a different light when faith steps into our lives. I may not have the answer to every question that is put to me, but somehow these questions never seem to make a dent in my faith. When the Bible is read, it is effective and sharp when it is read with faith.