Bible False Prophecies
Is the Bible the infallible, inerrant word of God, or does the Bible contain
false prophecies, making it fall far short of infallibility and inerrancy? Were
some of the Bible prophets actually prophets? Here
are examples of false prophecies in the Bible, followed by the opinions of
notable Christians like Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain about errors they found
in their Bibles ...
Let's begin with a prophet who admitted that he had made a false prophecy, then
immediately made another false prophecy!
One biblical prophet refuting another biblical prophet is
ironic, and it does happen, as we will see. But in this case the biblical
prophet refutes himself! The prophet Ezekiel (or a Levite scribe pretending to be Ezekiel)
predicted in Ezekiel chapters 26-28 that Nebuchadnezzar would sack, despoil and destroy Tyre, leaving it
uninhabited forever. But in the
Ezekiel (or someone pretending to be Ezekiel) admitted that the
earlier prediction had been false, since after many years of trying, Nebuchadnezzar
unable to sack Tyre (probably because it was an island fortress with a formidable navy). So the
prophet (or Levite scribe), speaking in Ezekiel chapters 29-32, predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would instead defeat
and destroy Egypt,
leaving it a completely uninhabited wasteland
for 40 years, devoid of all animals and with all Egyptians going into captivity.
But that never happened either, as Egypt has been continuously populated by
human beings and animals ever since the prediction. Nebuchadnezzar never invaded
Egypt successfully and certainly never conquered Egypt or left it an uninhabited
waste. The prophet who made these false predictions was also refuted by two biblical figures,
since both Jesus and Paul visited Tyre, which
remains populated to this day, and because Jesus and his family sought refuge
from Herod in Egypt, which also remains populated to this day.
The prophet who predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would sack Tyre admitted his false
Mortal, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon made his army labour hard against Tyre;
every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor
his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labour that he had expended
against it. Therefore, thus says the Lord God: I will give the land of Egypt to
King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it
and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the
land of Egypt as his payment for which he laboured, because they worked for me,
says the Lord God. (Ezekiel 29:18-20)
But the prophet was wrong again, because Nebuchadnezzar never plundered Egypt either.
Perhaps the most obvious refutation of one prophet by
another occurs between the Levites, who prophesied that they would always make
sacrifices in the temple (Jeremiah 33:18), and prophets who said that God did want
sacrifices at all, but rather desired compassion and justice, predicting that the Israelites would
lose the land and go into captivity if they kept up their evil ways. Six Hebrew
prophets said that God did not want sacrifices and Jesus quoted two of them.
" ... nor will the Levitical priests ever fail to have a man to stand before me
continually to offer burnt
offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices." (Jeremiah 33:18)
The prophecies of the Levites that they would always offer sacrifices in the
temple, and that an heir of David would always occupy the throne of Israel, were
soon refuted. The temple was destroyed. The Levites went into captivity. Ten of
the tribes of Israel were lost forever. For hundreds of years there were no
sacrifices because the temple did not exist. Then Herod rebuilt
the temple and the sacrifices resumed. But almost immediately the temple
became corrupt, and it was destroyed again, never to be rebuilt. So once again
the prophets of the Bible disagreed with each other. In this case, the Levites
were obviously false prophets.
The Bible has many false
prophecies that can never come true, such as Nebuchadnezzar leaving Tyre and
Egypt uninhabited wastes. Nebuchadnezzar is long dead and
can never fulfill those prophecies. The writers of the Bible were wrong about
many things and there is no reason to believe false prophets. In fact, the Bible
clearly says that if a prophet makes even one incorrect prediction, no one should
Isaiah 17:1-2 prophesies that Damascus would cease to be a city and become a heap
of ruins, to remain forever desolate. Yet some 27 centuries after the
prediction was made, Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world and is
still going strong. The Bible confirms this, since Paul had his vision of Jesus
Christ on the road to Damascus, and there was an early Christian church in
Jeremiah 25:11 predicted that the Israelites would be captives in Babylon for 70
years, and 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 portrays that prophecy as having been
fulfilled. But the Israelites were taken into captivity by the Chaldeans when
Jerusalem fell in 586 B.C. and Cyrus of Persia issued an order in 538 B.C.
allowing them to return from Babylon to Judah. Thus, the Babylonian captivity
lasted only about 48 years.
Examples of other unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies include:
(1) The Israelites will occupy the land from the Nile to the Euphrates (Genesis
15:18); this never happened.
(2) The Israelites will never lose their land and shall be disturbed no more (II
Samuel 7:10); in fact, ten of the Israelite tribes were lost forever, and the
remaining tribes of Judah and Benjamin lost their land to the Roman empire. The
Romans appointed foreigners to be kings over the land of Judah. King Herod was
not a Jew but an Imudean appointed to rule by the Romans.
(3) King David’s throne and kingdom shall be established forever (II Samuel
7:16); but his kingdom fell apart shortly after his death and there were no more
Israelite kings of Israel.
(4) No uncircumcised person will ever enter Jerusalem (Isaiah 52:1); but of
course Jerusalem was conquered and ruled by the uncircumcised Romans, among
other foreign conquerors.
(5) The river of ancient Egypt, identified as the Nile in the RSV, will dry up (Isaiah 19:5-7); but the Nile has never
dried up. There are similar prophecies in Ezekiel, previously noted, about the
Nile, but none of the Ezekiel prophecies about Egypt have come true, as also
False prophecies in the New Testament include:
In Matthew 16:28, Jesus tells his disciples: “There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
The people who were standing there all died eventually, and they never saw Jesus
return to establish his kingdom. Paul had to “talk down” the Christians of his day
because other Christians were dying and Jesus had not returned as promised.
In Mark 13:24-30 Jesus announced: “Verily I say unto you, that this generation
shall not pass, till all these things be done.” The things he had mentioned
included the sun being darkened, the moon not giving any light, the stars of
heaven falling, the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory,
and angels gathering the elect (the rapture). That generation passed away long
ago without any of the predicted events occurring.
Another false prophecy is John 14:13-14, where Jesus promises: “Whatsoever ye
shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the
Son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” Every Christian who has
prayed knows this is not true.
Jesus predicted the complete destruction of the Jerusalem Temple buildings: “Do
you see all these things? I tell you the truth: there will not be a stone left
on a stone here; all will be torn down” (Matthew 24:2 with parallels prophecies
in Mark 13:2 and Luke 19:44). But this never happened because today the Wailing
Wall still stands and some of the great foundation stones of the Temple have
been uncovered, with many huge stones standing on other stones. It turns out
that the Romans did not completely destroy the Temple, after all.
How did this happen? The men re-writing the New Testament to suit their purposes
were far away, in Greece or Rome, and could not actually visit the Temple
themselves. They heard rumors that the Temple had been completely destroyed, but
the rumors were wrong. So they put a false prophecy in the mouth of Jesus, many
years after the fact.
John of Patmos: Errors, Contradictions and False Prophecies
Should anyone believe the Revelation of John of Patmos
aka John the Divine? Or is the book of Revelation full of errors, contradictions
and false prophecies? Was the writer of the Apocalypse a prophet, or a deeply
Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation "the insanest of all books."
Thomas Jefferson considered Revelation "merely the ravings of a maniac."
Martin Luther said "Christ is neither taught nor known in it."
John Calvin "had grave doubts about its value."
Mark Twain said, "Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they
do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand."
I agree with Mark Twain. What bothers me about the Revelation of John of Patmos is not the parts I don't
understand, but the parts I do understand: the parts where God, Jesus Christ and
the Angels abandon every ethical teaching enshrined in the Bible and becoming a
pack of rabid, religion-besotted serial killers.
Clearly, the book of Revelation is full of errors and horrors. And the errors
and horrors are not only factual, scientific and prophetic, but also
theological, because John of Patmos clearly refuted core Christian beliefs. For
example, John called Jesus the "bright and morning star" when that was Lucifer's
designation (Isaiah 14:11-15). John then went on to describe a God who acts like
the Devil: killing women, children and innocent animals, then torturing human
beings with fire and brimstone "in the presence of the Lamb and Holy Angels."
What sort of "Lamb" and what sort of "Angels" torture other
beings with fire and brimstone, or sit idly by and watch them being tortured?
Will heaven be like Auschwitz? Will Jesus Christ turn out to be another Mengele
and God the Father another Hitler?
In his bizarre, palpably evil "revelation," John of Patmos said Jesus would kill
the children of an adulteress "with death." Strange grammar aside, according to
the Bible, Jesus rescued an adulteress from being stoned, so why would he kill
children for something their mother did, when the act didn't merit
death even for her? Why do so many Christians insist on turning Jesus into a
woman-killer and a child-killer, when they say he will return to destroy
multitudes of non-Christians? Good men do not kill women and children
purposefully for any reason, and to kill anyone for having sex
is barbaric. When Christians calmly assume that having sex is a valid reason for
other people to be killed, then tortured for all eternity, one must question
whether they believe that Jesus Christ is actually the Devil. If like John of
Patmos they believe Jesus will kill children because adults have sex, they make
him seem perverse beyond all belief.
Of course one cannot "prove" that there is an afterlife, or that God exists, or that
Jesus continues to live in some other dimension. But it almost seems not to
matter, to me. What's the point of "belief" if the only "hope" is that
beings worse than Hitler and Mengele will allow their obedient slaves to watch
them kill, then eternally torture, other human beings?
And why such unbelievable punishments for eating, drinking
and having sex? According to John of Patmos, Christians are condemned for eating
food sacrificed to idols, but according to Jesus, Peter and Paul, all food is
clean. Paul said that he could eat food offered to idols with a clear
conscience. Jesus said that it is what comes out of our mouths (words) that we
should worry about, not the food we ingest. Among Christians, only the Judaizers
that Paul opposed so vehemently believed certain foods were "unclean."
Obviously, John of Patmos was a Judaizer. There is no reason to worry about food
being offered to idols, because the "gods" represented by the idols are not real. So
John of Patmos was a superstitious man, if
he believed that offering food to a nonexistent "god" made it "unclean."
That John is a Judaizer is clear, because even if a church is doing well, it
must continue doing works to be saved. According to John, salvation is not by grace, but depends on
works, eating the right things, not having the wrong kind of sex, etc. This is
clearly illustrated in these verses:
Revelation 20:12-13—And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the
throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of
life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the
books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the
dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had
So grace had nothing to do with salvation, according to John. The only
thing that mattered was works.
It is also important to note that Hades was not "hell," but the grave. This is
also true for the Hebrew word Sheol. Sheol and Hades were not hell, but the
grave or the abode of all the dead (not just the "wicked"). It makes no sense to
say that God sent people to "hell" only to judge them and decide that they were
righteous, after all. So Bibles such as the KJV are obviously wrong when they
translate Sheol and Hades as "hell." Job asked to be hidden from suffering in
Sheol; King David said God would be with him if he made his bed in Sheol (i.e.,
if he died and was placed in the grave); the sons of Korah said God would redeem them from Sheol; and Israel
himself said that he and Joseph would be reunited in Sheol. Obviously, they were
not talking about a place of eternal suffering that could never be escaped. They
were talking about the grave: a place where there would be no more suffering.
But Christians have been terrified of a place called "hell" for centuries
because of a Bible they fail to understand. There is no reason to believe in a
place called "hell" as a revelation of an all-knowing God, because the God of
the Bible never mentioned "hell" or suffering after death to his best human
friends: Adam, Eve, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Joseph, Moses,
David, Solomon, or a long line of Hebrew prophets (the prophets said even Sodom
would be restored in the end). Nor did Paul ever mention a place called "hell"
in his epistles, the earliest-written Christian texts. Nor did the word "hell"
appear in any of the early Christian sermons recorded in the book of Acts
(ostensibly the self-recorded history of the early church). When Peter spoke
directly to the men who had murdered Jesus forty days before Pentecost, he spoke
of the "restitution of all things to God, spoken of by all the Holy Prophets
since the world began," but he never mentioned anyone going to a place called
"hell" for any reason. The only Sheol/Hades references in the book of Acts are
two quotations of David saying that his soul would not remain in Sheol (the
grave). The early Christians were clearly using the resurrection of Jesus to
claim that verses in the Hebrew Bible that prophesied a resurrection had been
fulfilled. They claimed that this proved that Jesus was the Messiah. But there
was nothing in the Hebrew Bible about a place called "hell" where people
suffered after death. So while most Christians today assume that the Jews and
early Christians believed in a place called "hell," this was obviously not the
case. Because Sheol and Hades did not mean "hell," people like John of Patmos
actually created a new, nameless place where human beings would be tortured
after death. Later, it seems Sheol, Hades and this nameless "lake of fire"
became confused, but if any of the parts of the Bible that prophesied the
Messiah and a resurrection and a peaceful kingdom came from God, there never was
a "hell" or a "lake of fire" for anyone to fear. Ironically, according to
the Jewish historian Josephus, among the Jews only the Pharisees believed in a
suffering after death. So even more ironically, it
seems John of Patmos may have been a Pharisee, one of the sworn enemies of
And here's another area of disagreement: the Bible clearly teaches that human
beings die only once, but John spoke of a "second death," which Christians were
in danger of. If there is a second death, why didn't God or Jesus or any prophet
or apostle ever mention it anywhere else in the Bible?
John said that Jesus would turn his back on Christians if they grew cold or even
lukewarm, but this refutes the promise of Jesus never to leave or forsake
Christians, "even to the ends of the earth."
John’s "God" is evil and unjust, a monster. For instance, John heard all the
creatures of the earth praise God, after which he turned around and destroyed
John’s "God" made ridiculous mistakes. For instance, all the grass was destroyed
by fire, but then later God "forgot" that the grass had been destroyed and told
the giant locusts not to harm the grass.
John said Jesus had "paps" (female breasts). Nowhere else in the Bible is God or
the Messiah described as being a hermaphrodite, although some pagan "gods" had
John said Jesus would search the hearts and kidneys ("reins") of believers.
Kidneys, really? That is a concept not found anywhere else in the Bible that I
John obviously believed that the earth was flat, with corners, and that the
stars were tiny pinpoints of light. He said he saw four angels standing on the
four corners of the earth. We know that his earth was flat because he said that
every eye would see Jesus when he descended from the clouds. That can only
happen on a flat earth. And John obviously believed that this would happen in
his own lifetime, because he said that the people who had "pierced" Jesus would
see him return. The people who had pierced Jesus were the Roman soldiers
who crucified him. John may have written his original text while living in
Jerusalem as it was being besieged by the Romans (circa AD 70). If so,
John was understandably full of hatred for the Romans and wanted Jesus to return
and destroy them. In John's vision, which seems to have been wishful thinking,
the people who had murdered Jesus would see him return to judge the "Beast" (the
Roman emperor) and "Babylon" (the Roman empire).
His hatred of the Romans probably led John to say they would be tortured with
fire and brimstone "in the presence of the Lamb and Holy Angels." But Jesus had
asked God to forgive his murderers because they didn’t know what they were
doing. How can these two very different visions of Jesus be reconciled? And how
can anyone believe Jesus and the Angels are going to torture human beings, in
heaven? So much for hell being "separation from God."
While most Christians now believe that Revelation forecasts future events, it
seems clear that the early Christians believed Jesus would return to their
Mathew 16:28―"I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not
experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Luke 9:27―"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death
before they see the kingdom of God."
Mark 13:30―I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all
these things take place.
Mark 14:62―[Jesus speaking to his accusers said] "You will see the Son of Man
sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven."
Yet another disagreement: John said God has seven spirits. This is not mentioned
anywhere else in the Bible.
John also got the names of the twelve tribes wrong, leaving out Dan and Ephraim,
but including Joseph. Joseph's sons were generally considered separate tribes in
their own right because they were allotted tribal territories within Israel, but
if Joseph’s sons are included there are fourteen tribes rather than twelve (or
thirteen if Joseph is not counted). It seems highly unlikely that an all-wise
God would have forgotten the names of the twelve tribes of Israel! But it's easy
for human beings to make mistakes, when they think there are twelve tribes but
there are actually fourteen.
John said the things he described must soon take place because the time was
near. And in a way he was right, because Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by the
Romans, and the Jews who lived went into Diaspora. So their world really did
end. But even if he was right about the timing, John was wrong about the
In John's book, the churches are judged collectively, not as individuals, and it
is not faith in Jesus that saves the churches, or the grace of God, but works.
The early church fathers knew the writer of Revelation was not the writer of the
Gospel of John, because Revelation is a poorly written book. Ancient church
fathers who denied that the author of John also wrote Revelation included John
Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and
Gregory Nazianzen. For example, Eusebius wrote of Revelation: "The phrasing
itself also helps to differentiate between the Gospel and Epistle[s of John] on
the one hand and the book of Revelation on the other. The first two are written
not only without errors in the Greek, but also with real skill with respect to
vocabulary, logic and coherence of meaning. You won't find any barbaric
expression, grammatical flaw, or vulgar expression in them. ... I don't deny
that this other author [John of Patmos] had revelations ... but I notice that in
neither language nor in style does he write accurate Greek. He makes use of
barbaric expressions and is sometimes guilty even of grammatical error ... I
don't say this in order to accuse him (far from it!), but simply to demonstrate
that the two books are not at all similar."
Eighteen hundred years ago, Dionysius (Bishop of the Patriarchy of Alexandria)
stated that Revelation was not written by the same person who wrote John's
Gospel and Letters. He compared the writing styles and found John of Patmos to
be unlike any other New Testament writer.
Tom Harpur describes Revelation's Greek style as "barbarous."
Martin Luther believed Revelation contradicted much of the content of the Gospel
of John and the synoptic Gospels, so he relegated it to an appendix in his
German translation of the Bible.
John of Patmos contradicts John the Apostle at nearly every turn. And we should
remember that Revelation was doubted by many early Christians and was not
generally accepted as part of the New Testament canon until AD 508. Some
Christian sects still do not include it in their Bibles. Therefore criticism of
Revelation is not new.
And if the number of the beast is so important, why do different texts have
different numbers: 666 and 616?
The early Church father Irenaeus knew of several occurrences of the 616 variant.
The testimony of Irenaeus is important, because he was a disciple of Polycarp
who according to his followers was a disciple of the apostle John.
In May 2005, it was reported that scholars at Oxford University using advanced
imaging techniques had been able to read previously illegible portions of the
earliest known record of Revelation (a 1,700 year old papyrus), from the
Oxyrhynchus site, Papyrus 115 or P115, dating one century after Irenaeus. The
fragment gives the Number of the Beast as 616 (χ ι ϛ), rather than the majority
text 666 (χ ξ ϛ). The other early witness Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) has it
written in full: hexakosiai deka hex (lit. six hundred sixteen). Significantly,
P115 aligns with Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) which
are generally regarded as providing the best testimony to Revelation.
Dr. Paul Lewes in his book, A Key to Christian Origins (1932) wrote: "The figure
616 is given in one of the two best manuscripts, C (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus,
Paris), by the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of
Theology, SE, April 1913), and by an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybaere,
1907). Irenaeus knew about it [the 616 reading], but did not adopt it (Haer.
v.30,3), Jerome adopted it (De Monogramm., ed. Dom G Morin in the Rev.
Benedictine, 1903). It is probably original."
Professor David C. Parker, Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and
Paleography at the University of Birmingham, thinks that 616, although less
memorable than 666, is the original. Dr. Ellen Aitken said: "Scholars have
argued for a long time over this, and it now seems that 616 was the original
number of the beast. It's probably about 100 years before any other version."
THOMAS JEFFERSON LETTER ABOUT REVELATION
TO GENERAL ALEXANDER SMYTH MONTICELLO
January 17 1825
I have duly received four proof sheets of your explanation of the Apocalypse
with your letters of December 29th and January 8th; in the last of which you
request that so soon as I shall be of opinion that the explanation you have
given is correct I would express it in a letter to you. From this you must be so
good as to excuse me because I make it an invariable rule to decline ever giving
opinions on new publications in any case whatever. No man on earth has less
taste or talent for criticism than myself and least and last of all should I
undertake to criticise works on the Apocalypse. It is between fifty and sixty
years since I read it and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a
maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our
own nightly dreams. I was therefore well pleased to see in your first proof
sheet that it was said to be not the production of St John but of Cerinthus a
century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author's name
does not lessen the extravagances of the composition and come they from
whomsoever they may I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an
allegorical narrative of events past or subsequent. There is not coherence
enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge
therefore from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation or
that of any man in the heavens above or on the earth beneath can be a correct
one. What has no meaning admits no explanation and pardon me if I say with the
candor of friendship that I think your time too valuable and your understanding
of too high an order to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive I hope
also that I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being whom I
would not so far blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation
couched at the same time in terms which He would know were never to be
understood by those to whom they were addressed. In the candor of these
observations I hope you will see proofs of the confidence esteem and which I
entertain for you.
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson By Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb,
Albert Ellery Bergh, Richard Holland Johnston, Thomas Jefferson memorial
association of the United States
MARK TWAIN QUOTES ABOUT THE BIBLE
It [the Bible] is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever
fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of
obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.—Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth
The two Testaments are interesting, each in its own way. The Old one gives us a
picture of these people's Deity as he was before he got religion, the other one
gives us a picture of him as he appeared afterward.—Mark Twain, Letters from the
The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the
medical practice changes...The world has corrected the Bible. The church never
corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession—and
take the credit of the correction. During many ages there were witches. The
Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live.
Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters,
thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked
hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged,
and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world
clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing
as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to
cry.....There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has
changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but
the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law
books, but the texts that authorized them remain.—Mark Twain, "Bible Teaching
and Religious Practice"
When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at
what He doesn't know.—Mark Twain, Notebook
If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be—a Christian.—Mark Twain,
There has been only one Christian. They caught him and crucified him,
early.—Mark Twain, Notebook (1898)
I bring you the stately matron named Christendom, returning bedraggled,
besmirched, and dishonored, from pirate raids in Kiao-Chou, Manchuria, South
Africa, and the Phillipines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of
boodle, and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and towel, but
hide the looking glass.—Mark Twain, speech, "A Salutation from the 19th to the
20th Century" (December 31, 1900)
The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive ... but
in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every
innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the
use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the
biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology
ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us
in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian
religion was born.—Mark Twain, from Albert Bigelow Paine, Mark Twain, a
Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand,
but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.—Mark Twain
I am plenty safe enough in his hands; I am not in any danger from that kind of a
Deity. The one that I want to keep out of the reach of, is the caricature of him
which one finds in the Bible. We (that one and I) could never respect each
other, never get along together. I have met his superior a hundred times—in fact
I amount to that myself.—Mark Twain, letter to Livy (July 17, 1889)
To this day I cherish an unappeasable bitterness against the unfaithful
guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an
unexpurgated Bible through before I was 15 years old. None can do that and ever
draw a clean sweet breath again this side of the grave.—Mark Twain, letter to
librarian Asa Don Dickinson (November 21, 1905)
Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above
blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.—Mark Twain, from Albert
Bigelow Paine, Mark Twain, a Biography (1912)
Nevertheless we have this curious spectacle: daily the trained parrot in the
pulpit gravely delivers himself of these ironies, which he has acquired at
second-hand and adopted without examination, to a trained congregation which
accepts them without examination, and neither the speaker nor the hearer laughs
at himself. It does seem as if we ought to be humble when we are at a
bench-show, and not put on airs of intellectual superiority there.—Mark Twain,
"Thoughts of God"
If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and
characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's
compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I
would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards. He
would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not
sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the
product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man
in this regard. He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses
conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's
heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers
for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man. In His Bible
there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author
and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for
its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right
belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner. He would not be a jealous God—a trait so
small that even men despise it in each other. He would not boast. He would keep
private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming
the dignity of his position. He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His
heart. Then it would not issue from His lips. There would not be any hell—except
the one we live in from the cradle to the grave. There would not be any
heaven—the kind described in the world's Bibles. He would spend some of His
eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could
have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in
studying astronomy.—Mark Twain, Notebook
To trust the God of the Bible is to trust an irascible, vindictive, fierce and
ever fickle and changeful master; to trust the true God is to trust a Being who
has uttered no promises, but whose beneficent, exact, and changeless ordering of
the machinery of His colossal universe is proof that He is at least steadfast to
His purposes; whose unwritten laws, so far as the affect man, being equal and
impartial, show that he is just and fair; these things, taken together, suggest
that if he shall ordain us to live hereafter, he will be steadfast, just and
fair toward us. We shall not need to require anything more.—Mark Twain, from
Albert Bigelow Paine, Mark Twain, a Biography (1912)
IF HE COULD FORESEE THE FUTURE, WHY DID THE BIBLICAL GOD MAKE SO MANY
The Bible makes little sense because it claims that its “god” was all-wise and
knew the future before it happened, and yet he made mistakes. A “god” who knew
the future could have foreseen, for instance, that Saul would be a terrible
king. He could also have foreseen that David would be an even more terrible
king. David was clearly not the "man after God’s own heart," if Jesus is the
example. Rather, David was the Jewish Hitler. He killed every woman when he
"smote the land." He ordered the slaughter of the lame and blind when Jerusalem
was taken from the Jebusites because he "hated" the handicapped. Jesus, of
course, had compassion for the handicapped. David tortured people in brick kilns
(ovens), shades of the Nazis! And David never repented, because with his dying
breath he commanded the assassination of Joab, ostensibly for having shed
innocent blood. But it was David who had offered Joab the captaincy of his
armies for murdering the handicapped. David was the Jewish Hitler, and the
antithesis of Jesus.
1 Samuel 27:9 — "And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman
2 Samuel 5:8 — "And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter,
and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind that are hated of David's
soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame
shall not come into the house."
2 Samuel 12:31 — "And he [David] brought forth the people that were therein, and
put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made
them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the
children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem."
1 Chronicles 20:3 — "And he [David] brought out the people that were in it, and
cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David
with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people
returned to Jerusalem.
Another example can be found in the book of Job, where Satan persuades God to
murder Job's children in order to "test" his faith. But a God who is all-wise
and can foresee the future doesn't need to murder anyone, much less children, to
know what will happen. The Bible is a collection of badly-told fairy tales, and
in their telling of tall tales the authors of the Bible often made their "god"
seem worse than the Devil. I read the Bible from cover to cover at age eleven,
then wrote this epigram to express my conclusion:
half the Bible
—Michael R. Burch
Later, as an adult, I read the Bible from cover to cover again. I also studied
many books written by Christian authors like C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham and
Watchman Nee. And I came to exactly the same conclusion. No one can make the
biblical "god" seem in any way to be "good." The "god" of the Old Testament was
diabolical, a serial murderer of multitudes of men, women, children, infants,
babies, unborns and animals. But the "god" of the New Testament was infinitely
worse, because he would either cause or allow billions of human beings to suffer
for all eternity for the "sin" of failing to guess which earthly religion is the
Donald Trump: 666 Mark of the Beast
There is no "hell" in the Bible!
What did Jesus teach about Hell?
How many times is "hell" mentioned in the Bible?
Is there a word meaning "hell" in the Hebrew language?
Was "hell" in the Original Hebrew Bible?
Is "hell" mentioned in the Old Testament?
Is "hell" mentioned in the New Testament
Is the word "hell" in the Bible at all?
Why is "hell" not Biblical?
Hell is not in the Bible!
Is the Bible infallible, or the inerrant word of God?
Is the Bible the Word of God?,
The Bible's Satanic Verses
Is the Garden of Eden story true?
Is the Bible an Extraordinary book?
John of Patmos: Boom or Bust?
Bible False Prophecies