these configurations will be saved for each time you visit this page using this browser
This article is about criticisms which are made against the Bible as a source of information or ethical guidance. Criticism of the Bible is not the same thing as Biblical criticism which is the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document. It is also not the same as Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Judaism, which are criticisms of entire religions.
In modern times, the view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many mainstream academics in the field of Biblical criticism. The majority of Christian groups claim Biblical inerrancy, and frequently oppose interpretations of the Bible that are not traditional or "plain reading". Some of the most conservative Christian circles believe the King James translation of the Scriptures is the only accurate English translation of the Bible, and accept it as infallible. Christian Fundamentalism—as well as much of Orthodox Judaism—strongly support the idea that the Bible is a historically accurate record of actual events and a primary source of moral guidance.
In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture). Jews discount the New Testament and most of Judeao-Christianity discredit the legitimacy of the New Testament apocrypha.
The formation of the canon of Scripture was the process of determining exactly which writings were to be accepted in the Jewish or Christian Scriptures. It was not until about AD 100 that the final selection of authorized Jewish Scriptures was complete. Until the 18th century, the general belief in Christendom was that the earth was created some 4,000 years before the birth of Christ, and that the Garden of Eden, the Flood and the Tower of Babel, Abraham and the Exodus, and all subsequent narrative, were real history. Then the growth of the sciences in the 18th and 19th centuries — notably geology and the Theory of Evolution — threw the first few chapters of Genesis into doubt, and by the end of the 19th century the view that the first eleven chapters of Genesis represented actual historical events was being widely questioned. The general opinion among non-creationist bible scholars today is that , taking in the cycle of stories from the Creation to the "generations of Terah", is a highly schematic literary work representing theology rather than history.
At the same time traditional ideas about the composition of the books were being undermined. At the end of the 17th century few Bible scholars would have questioned that the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But in the late 18th century scholars began to question these traditional authorships, and by the end of the 19th century the consensus view among biblical scholars was that the Pentateuch as a whole was the work of many more authors over many centuries from 1000 BC (the time of David) to 500 BC (the time of Ezra), and that the history it contained was often more polemical rather than strictly factual. By the first half of the 20th century Hermann Gunkel had drawn attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense.
In AD 367 the present 27 books of the New Testament alongside the present 39 book canon of the Christian Old Testament became solidified. Elaine Pagels has proposed that there are several examples of gnostic attitudes in the Pauline Epistles, Elaine Pagels. Bart D. Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown note that some of the Pauline epistles are widely regarded by scholars as pseudonymous, and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this involved a forgery in an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's Gnostic supporters and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head.
Some critics have maintained that Christianity is not founded on an historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation. This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus, which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.
Some critics express concern that none of the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible still exist. All translations of the Bible have been made from well respected but centuries-old copies of the original manuscripts. Religious communities value highly those who interpret their scriptures at both the scholarly and popular levels. Translation of scripture into the vernacular (such as English and hundreds of other languages), though a common phenomenon, is also a subject of debate and criticism.
Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that "inerrancy" applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the King-James-Only Movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages.
Because many of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur. For instance, at creation(), is רוח אלהים (ruwach 'elohiym) the "wind of god", "spirit of god"(i.e., the Holy Spirit in Christianity), or a "mighty wind" over the primordial deep? In Hebrew, רוח(ruwach) can mean "wind","breath" or "spirit". Both ancient and modern translators are divided over this and many other such ambiguities. Another example is the word used in the masoretic text to indicate the woman who would bear Emmanuel is alleged to mean a young, unmarried woman in Hebrew, while follows the Septuagint version of the passage which uses the Greek word parthenos, translated virgin, and is used to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. Those who view the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most English translations of the Old Testament, as being more accurate than the Septuagint, and trust its usual translation, may see this as an inconsistency, whereas those who take the Septuagint to be accurate may not.
In the History of the English Bible, there have been many changes to the wording, leading to several competing versions. Many of these have contained Biblical errata—typographic errors, such as the phrases Is there no treacle in Gilead?, Printers have persecuted me without cause, and Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?, and even Thou shalt commit adultery.
More recently, several discoveries of ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and Codex Sinaiticus, have led to modern translations like the New International Version differing somewhat from the older ones such as the 17th century King James Version, removing verses not present in the earliest manuscripts (see List of omitted Bible verses), some of which are acknowledged as interpolations, such as the Comma Johanneum, others having several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16. The King-James-Only Movement advocates reject these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.
Certain interpretations of the moral decisions in the Bible are considered ethically questionable by many modern groups. Some of the passages (generally ones related to Mosaic Law) most commonly criticized include the subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest, toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments, obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites. Some religious groups support the Bible's decisions by reminding critics that they should be judged by the standards of the time and that Mosaic Law applied to the Israelite people (who lived before the birth of Jesus). Other religious groups, mostly conservatives, see nothing wrong with the Bible's judgments. Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche who popularized the phrase "God is dead," have criticized the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.
However authors such as Raymond Brown have presented arguments that the Gospels actually contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details. W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could". More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts, or at least constructed from traditions which predate the Gospels.
For example, many versions of the Bible specifically point out that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not include , i.e., the Gospel of Mark originally ended at , and additional verses were added a few hundred years later. This is known as the "Markan Appendix".
According to Christian apologists, the alleged fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible and that Jesus is the Son of God. However, according to Jewish scholars, Christian claims that Jesus is the textual messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah. An example of this is . Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin, while Jews read it as referring to the birth of Ahaz's son, Hezekiah. They also point out that the word Almah, used in , is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, they maintain that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, they claim the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.
The Bible also contains prophecies that are disputed, including
* The Book of Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others(). We are told in Joshua 11:3-14, that Jebusites were among a listing of other peoples whom Joshua, "cut down until they had not a single survivor." (Joshua 11:8) "Their cities were destroyed," (Joshua 11:12) and the people living there were "put to the sword, destroying them all". The Israelites then "plundered the cities," (Joshua 11:14) .
However, according to , and , those tribes were not driven out.
Later in Joshua 21:43-45 we are told : However, the Book of Judges said that only part of the country was conquered "after the death of Joshua" and the Canaanites were still a group to be reckoned with(, ).
Apologists argue that it is true that the Israelites could not drive out all Canaanite tribes in the lifetime of Joshua. According to F.F. Bruce there remained even several Canaanite fortified positions strung along the Plain of Jezreel, from the Mediterranean coast to the Jordan and the stronghold of Jerusalem as a Canaanite (Jebusite) enclave.
The book of Joshua with the above mentioned passages and the book of Judges (chapter 1) themselves delineate which towns could not be defeated and that the Israelites had to accept Canaanites living next to them. This shows that the Bible does not palliate historical facts but reports what happened even if it causes tensions concerning prophecy and its fulfillment. On the other hand we have to see that the main content of this prophecy was fulfilled because the Israelites could occupy Canaan by defeating its inhabitants although the complete seizure took place only in the time of monarchy (David defeated the Jebusites in Jerusalem and made it the capital of his empire.
harbour]]
* Ezekiel predicts that the ancient city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" which will "never be rebuilt" (, ,). However, Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact.
Apologists note that the prophecy states that "many nations" would accomplish the destruction of Tyre, and claim that this refers to later conquerors (), but skeptics counter that this was a reference to the "many nations" of Nebuchadrezzar's multinational force (Nebuchadrezzar was described by Ezekiel as "king of kings", i.e., an overking, a ruler over many nations), and that subsequent conquerors didn't permanently destroy Tyre either (it is now the fourth-largest city in Lebanon). Ezekiel himself admitted later that Nebuchadnezzar could not defeat Tyre (). A prophet does not only utter God's word without own consideration, but plays a part in communicating God's will. Ezekiel seems to have overstepped this responsibility by exaggerating the punishment for Tyre.
* Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (), and Nebuchadrezzar would be allowed to plunder it () as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above). However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History records that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and prosperous reign; Herodotus writes that: The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later, in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt. F.F. Bruce writes still more exactly that the Babylonien king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre 585—573 BC and replaced the pharao Hophra (Apries) by Amasis:Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto present day Spain:}}
On the other hand Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since contested. The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.
* Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies (), yet according to 2 Chronicles, the king of Aram and Israel did conquer Judah ().
In Isaiah () the prophet says clearly that a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the prophecy is that Ahaz stands firm in his faith. According to F.F. Bruce, this means that he should trust God and not seek military help in the Assyrians which Ahaz nevertheless did.
* Jeremiah predicts 70 years () for the Babylonian exiles but they only lasted 59 years.
Christian apologists point out that the first wave of captivity took place under King Jehoiakim of Judah already in 605 BC Since the captivity terminated at 538 BC when Cyrus the Great after conquering Babylon permitted the Jews to return to Palestine, the total duration of the exile would be 67 years. However, whether this prophecy was fulfilled or not is not a question of the exact duration of the Babylonian exile. Jeremiah gave a round number indicating that first of all it will not last forever but God promises that the Jews will return, on the other hand they should not expect this in the close future. It will take one to two generations.
* In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (). However, according to Jeremiah (, he was put in prison until the day of his death.
Apologists answered that Zedekiah did not suffer the same terrible death as all the other nobles of Judah did when Nebuchadnezzar killed them in Riblah. Jeremiah also told Zedekiah in his prophecy that he would have to go to Babylon which means that he will be imprisoned. We do not have any historical record of what happened with Zedekiah in Babylon and a peaceful death is not ruled out.
* Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace (), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was probably killed at Megiddo in a battle with the Egyptian army (). Prophecy in the biblical sense is except in some very few cases never a foretelling of future events but it wants to induce the hearers to repent, to admonish and to encourage respectively; biblical prophecy includes almost always a conditional element.
in Genesis 15:18-21: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.]]
* According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (, and ), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally () own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever. God broke his promise, as conceded in and and .
An apologists response would be that a reading of Davidic conquests tells of the Israelite occupation of all the promised lands. F.F. Bruce writes:
and are taken out of context if used as evidence against the fulfillment of these prophecies. Stephen does not state in Acts that the prophecy was not fulfilled. Moreover, it does not seem any problem for him to mention side by side the promise to Abraham himself and that Abraham did not get even a foot of ground. This becomes understandable with the concept of corporate personality. Jews are familiar with identifying individuals with the group they belong to. H. Wheeler Robinson writes that }} The letter to the Hebrews speaks about the promise of the heavenly country ().
* According to , "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered to be among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world.
The apologists response to this criticism is that this verse refers to the destruction of Damascus as a strong capital of Syria. This was fulfilled during the Syro-Ephraimite War. ). Damascus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser in 732, and Samaria by Sargon in 721.}} The passage is consistent with which states that Assyria defeated the city and exiled the civilians to Kir.
* According to , Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria. A Jewish community exists at Alexandria even to this day.
According to apologists, a more thorough look at the surrounding text suggests that Jeremiah is stating that no refugees who flee to Egypt would return to Israel except for few fugitives. Jeremiah 42-44 had relevance mainly to the group of exiles who fled to Egypt. It emphasizes that the future hopes of a restored Israel lay elsewhere than with the exiles to Egypt.
* Isaiah and Jeremiah (, , , and ) predicted the return of the exiles taken from Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It never happened. Following the conquest of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 721 BC, the 10 tribes were gradually assimilated by other peoples and thus disappeared from history. Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity in 537 BC, the 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. Assyria has long since vanished, its capital, Nineveh, destroyed in 612 BC.
However, according to apologists, Luke 2:36 records that the prophetess Anna, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, was living as a widow in the sanctuary ministering to God with and fastings and petitions night and day. Thus, at least some (tiny) portion of Israel returned, since it was unlikely that a lone female would return to the land of Israel unaccompanied by kinsmen as safe escort.
Although the exiled Israelites from the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyria it has to be considered that these passages, according to apologists contain also the expectation of the messianic days. Theologians point out that in Euphrates and the Wadi of Egypt represent the northern and southern borders of the Promised Land in its widest extent () and thus they refer these verses to the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem in the last days, in the messianic time. Israelites will be gathered from wherever they have been expelled from the north, Assyria, to the south, Egypt. Jeremiah's prophecy of Israel's and Judah's return from the north in Jeremiah 3:18 is preceded by the request of Yahweh to the Israelites to come back (verse 14). After fulfilling this condition God will increase their number and none will miss the ark of the covenant (verse 16). All nations will then honour the Lord (verse 17). Consequently Christian scholars refer verse 18 to messianic times when there will be a kingdom united as in the days of David and Solomon. Jeremiah 31 should be seen in context with chapter 30. Some scholars argue that these chapters were written early in Jeremiah's ministry and refer to Northern Israel. Later these poems were updated and referred to Judah as well, probably by Jeremiah himself, when it was realized that Judah had passed through similar experiences to those of Israel. The Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30:1—31:40) reaches his final, messianic scope in the establishment of a New Covenant between Yahweh and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.
* predicted that "the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt". It never happened.
According to theologians the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt but a circumlocution for the place where God lives; it is God and his plans that will cause Egypt to be terrified. Verse 17 has to be understood in its context. The second "in that day" message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19-21). The last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23-25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.
* , , , and predicted that Babylon would be destroyed by the Medes, Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz and Elamites. The Persians under Cyrus the Great captured Babylon in 539 BC. incorrectly stated that it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon.
Christian apologists state that the prophecy in could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation.
Jeremiah prophesied at the height of the Median empire's power, and thus he was probably influenced to see the Medes as the nation that will conquer Babylon. Several proposals were brought forth for "Darius the Mede" out of which one says that Cyrus the Great is meant in .
; Jehoiakim prophecies
* The prophet Daniel states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah (). The third year of Jehoiakim's reign was 605 BC, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BC that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died. Apologists respond that this is not a prophecy but a statement. Daniel 1:1 is a problem of dating. But already F.F. Bruce solved this problem explaining that when Nebuchadnezzar, son of king Nabopolassar, was put in charge over a part of his forces, he defeated Necho in the battle of Carchemish 605 BC. In this situation his father Nabopolassar died. Before Nebuchadnezzar as heir apparent returned to Babylon he settled the affairs in the Asiatic countries bordering the Egyptian frontier, which means also Judah, and took captives from several countries as, for example, also from the Jews.
* Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death (, ). However, his death was recorded in where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers". This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers () and so did Solomon (). On the other hand, states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon (), one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem".
Apologists proposal for a partial solution: Also F.F. Bruce writes that Jehoiakim died in Juda before the siege of Jerusalem began. This would mean that Jehoiakim was desecrated after his death and in this way the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The passage in does not speak explicitly about Jehoiakim's death. Thus, it can be seen as a parallel to which speaks about an event in the lifetime of the king of Judah (see paragraph above). , nevertheless, remains unclear.
* Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (, ). Even more devastating than that are the biblical genealogies that show Jehoiakim to be a direct ancestor of Jesus (, ). Apologists say that if Jehoiakim had not been killed by his own people, on the condition that this supposition is true (see preceding paragraph), in all likelihood, Jehoiakim would have been put to death by the Babylonians. The Israelites anticipated what Nebuchadnezzar intended to do. In this case, most probable, Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin would not have become king and Jeremiah's prophecy would have been fulfilled in its full sense. Jehoiachin's successor, Zedekiah, was no descendant of Jehoiakim, but his brother.
The double reckoning of Jehoiachin in is made possible by the fact that the same Greek name can translate the two similar Hebrew names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin. In this way in verse 11 Jehoiakim and in verse 12 Jehoiachin is meant. The verse says that Jehoiakim's descendants will not be kings in Judah anymore. This does not mean that he cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah.
; New Testament
by night. According to Luke 19:41-44:As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.]]
* Jesus said in Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6 that "no stone" of Jerusalem or of the temple would be left upon another. This prophecy failed as the wailing wall still remains.
An apologist answer to this criticism is simply that Jesus was no literalist. The expression that no stone will be left on another speaks about a complete destruction of the town and the temple but not in the sense that there cannot remain a building or a wall. The fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD was irreversible and most significant; it caused the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple. John A.T. Robinson writes that
; The imminence of the second coming
* Jesus apparently prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers and Caiphas, and immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (referred to as abomination of desolation in Matt 24:15).
(see also Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:62-64, Mark 14:62)An apologist response to this, however, is that Jesus did not mean his second coming in Matthew 16:28 but speaks about demonstrations of his might, formulating this as 'coming in his kingdom', especially the destruction of the Jerusalem temple 70 AD, which he foretold, and which definitely showed that God's nation are the Christians and not anymore the Jews whom God did not protect anymore. At that time really only some of his disciples still lived. In the same way Matthew 10:23 should be understood. It should be noted however that this view (referred to as Preterism) is not the majority view among American denominations especially by those denominations which espouse Dispensationalism. Furthermore it is a misunderstanding that Jesus meant Caiphas in Mark 14:62. The word "you will see" is in Greek "ὄψεσθε" [opheste, from the infinitive optomai] which is plural and not singular. Jesus meant that the Jews, and not just the high priest, will see his coming.
* This prophecy is also seen in the Revelation of Jesus to John.
Despite the strongly repeated promises to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4,11) in the 1st century CE, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly according to critics.Apologists respond that the word "soon" (other translations use "shortly" or "quickly") does not have to be understood in the sense of close future. The Norwegian scholar Thorleif Boman explained that the Israelites, unlike Europeans or people in the West, did not understand time as something measurable or calculable according to Hebrew thinking but as something qualitative.In this way expressions of time, such as "soon", do not mean that the denoted event will take place in close future but that it will be the next significant event. After Jesus had accomplished his ministry on earth he will come a second time to judge the world. The Book of Revelation says that Jesus will come soon which should express that Jesus' return is the next and final acting from the side of God in his salvation plan. According to this explanation the imminent return shows the certainty of Jesus' second coming.
* Apostle Paul also predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:17:
The philosopher Porphyry (232-305 CE), in his Kata Christianon (Against the Christians), a book burned and banned by the church in 448 CE writes of Paul:There is an apologist answer for the passage in , namely that Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically. He identifies himself with those Christians who will still live in the time of Jesus' return but does not want to express that he himself will still experience this. That becomes fully clear some verses later in which he says that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief (). The comparison of the Day of the Lord with a thief is a word of Jesus himself () which expresses the impossibility to say anything about the date of his second coming ().
"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so." From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
Dever also wrote:
Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence....I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information...
Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.
Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:
This text is licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA License. This text was originally published on Wikipedia and was developed by the Wikipedia community.
![Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.[8:6] His famous sermon from a hill representing Mount Zion is considered by many Christian scholars to be the antitype[11] of the proclamation of the Old Covenant by Moses from Mount Sinai.](http://web.archive.org./web/20110103011929im_/http://cdn.wn.com/pd/5a/12/f6f18bb34741f276a55ca65f3ec0_grande.jpg "Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.[8:6] His famous sermon from a hill representing Mount Zion is considered by many Christian scholars to be the antitype[11] of the proclamation of the Old Covenant by Moses from Mount Sinai.")
![Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.[8:6] His famous sermon from a hill representing Mount Zion is considered by many Christian scholars to be the antitype[11] of the proclamation of the Old Covenant by Moses from Mount Sinai.](http://web.archive.org./web/20110103011929im_/http://cdn.wn.com/pd/5a/12/f6f18bb34741f276a55ca65f3ec0_thumb.jpg "Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.[8:6] His famous sermon from a hill representing Mount Zion is considered by many Christian scholars to be the antitype[11] of the proclamation of the Old Covenant by Moses from Mount Sinai.")
