The Truth of the Bible

I have become a secular humanist for about three years now. Sometime in 2012, a friend of mine converted from Catholicism to a little fringe Christian fundamentalist sect. After his conversion, gatherings with mutual friends became an exercise in emotional self-control on my part and practically a proselytizing session on his part. On my part, I was resisting the urge, which I could not for long contain, to air my doubts with regards to organized religion. That friend of mine became indoctrinated in a Christian sect that emphasizes and believes in the literal interpretation and reading of the Bible. As such, outings with friends were fraught with uneasiness, at least for the rest of us, as he no longer ate most of the food sold in stores. This was, according t him, in keeping with the teachings of the Bible.

On one incident, he commented that alcohol intake is prohibited in his faith. When I asked him why, he said that it was forbidden in the Bible. When I told him even Jesus drank wine, he responded by saying that actually they are allowed to drink alcoholic beverages, as long as the alcohol content is less than 5%. I then retorted, what is your basis? When Jesus drank wine, was the alcohol content known, and did the Bible actually specify the allowable alcohol content? He just shrugged his shoulders.

It is tragic indeed that fundamentalist Christians spend their lives chained to the literal interpretation of the Bible, and such belief has actually made them ever more arrogant, judgmental and hubristic. I can actually see the difference, or the change in my friends outlook in life - for me, it was a change for the worse as he became, as I said earlier, arrogant, judgmental and hubristic.

Nevertheless, being friends, I still tried to communicate with him as any normal friend would, with calm and reason. In a gathering after work, which we usually did during weekends, we came to talking about the author of the Genesis, the first book of the Bible. According to my friend, let us just call him A, Moses is the author of Genesis, and the other first four books of the Bible. I pressed him on this, and according to him, that is what his religion teaches. I demonstrated to him evidences that will show that Genesis could not have been written by one person. Take for example the first chapter of Genesis, it talks about the creation of the world. In chapter one, god created the universe and separated light and day on the first day, on the second day god separated the sky from the water, third day: land appeared and plants grew, fourth day: light was made to appear to separate day from night (I thought god already did this on the first day?), creating the sun to provide light for the day and the moon to provide light for the night (mmmm, isn't the sun the source of light in the first place?) , fifth day: animals were created, sixth day: god created human beings (it's not specified if they were male and female), only that humans were created (this of course tells us that males and females were created at the same time); seventh and last day: god made the seventh day a special day and he rested.

In chapter two of Genesis, this is the order of creation: man (as in the XY gene), followed by plants, then animals, then woman. It is safe to say that in chapter two creation story version, man was created ahead of plans and animals, yet in chapter one, plants and animals were created ahead of man. If the Genesis was written by one person, then how could that same person say two inconsistent versions of the same story in two consecutive chapters? Wouldn't he have noticed that he just wrote a version different from the one he earlier wrote? Researchers have concluded that this is one indication that the Genesis story was not written by one person.

I told my friend that another evidence that Genesis could not have been written by Moses can be found in the last book of the Deuterocanonicals, Deuteronomy Chapter 34. Chapter 34 talks about the death of Moses in a third person voice. If Moses wrote it, then he could not have died before it was written, especially since the tone of the chapter is from someone who actually witnessed the death of someone. Chapter four essentially describes the incidents occurring before Moses' supposed death. If Moses wrote it, it would lead to an absurdity since it would imply that he was actually present when he died! Verse one of the chapter: "Moses went up from the plains of the Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Mount Pisgah east of Jericho, and there the Lord showed him the whole land: the territory of Gilead as far north as the town of Dan:"

The Bible is considered by fundamentalist Christians as true literally and historically in its totality. Although it can be proven by archeology that there are certain things in the Bible that can be confirmed independently, at least with regards to the names of the places during Jesus' time, there are many things that are just not historically accurate, or  real for that matter. The wandering for example of the Jews in the desert for forty years is not supported by facts on the ground. The desert being referred to here is most likely the Sinai Desert, as this story happened after the Jews escaped from enslavement in Egypt on its way to the promised land. Archeologists have never found any traces of civilization in the Sinai. If the Jews were really wandering in that area for forty years, it would be impossible for them not to have left anything.

Eventually, my friend and I, together with our circle of friends, eventually drifted apart, but not only because his interests have already differed, but because we were no longer working in the same company, having been retrenched from work the previous semester.

It would be safe to assume that I lost a friend to fundamentalism. I think religion is more often a bane to man than a boon as it deprives man of his rationality and sense of humanism. And to be sucked into a life of religious fundamentalism is doubly more tragic, as one is straitjacketed into a set of beliefs that are at most irrational and baseless, even cruel and inhuman. It is tragic that one of the most self-disciplined and fun persons I have ever met, not to mention intelligent and logical, was brainwashed into a life of complete rational darkness and blind belief. But then again, he moved into that way of life after we were unceremoniously retrenched from work, and deep in my mind, I have always believed that it was probably his way of coping with losing a job he so dearly, we so dearly valued and loved. And that is something that I cannot condemn him for - man has always sought avenues for coping with the harsh realities of life. And for my friend A, it was into the arms of a religion that answered everything in black and white, were thinking no longer is needed as answers were ready and packaged to be given.

There will always linger in me what ifs. What if we were not retrenched? Would he still have drifted to fundamentalism? Bertrand Russel once said that "religion is a defensive reaction against the destructive forces of nature." And I think he is right.